Datasets:
ELVISIO
/
imdb_dataset_offical_triplet

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
2
text
stringlengths
52
13.9k
anchor
stringlengths
52
13.9k
positive
stringclasses
2 values
negative
stringclasses
2 values
i wish more movies were two hours long. on the other hand and i wish more american civil war movies were merely two hours long. gone with the wind and gettysburg that about the length i have come to expect while although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted while and even gettysburg lasted as long as it did because things happened in the course of it. by contrast ang lee film is bloated and uneventful. it actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. that wasn not a compliment. it really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation represent at the time it feels as though it will never end and afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all. the film gets off on the wrong foot and as lee plays his interminable credits over the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. the central two are jake and the son of german immigrants who are staunch supporters of lincoln and and jack and an equally staunch southerner whose values jake shares. (i had to re read that sentence to make sure i hadn not written jack instead of jake at some point or vice versa. ) the two go off to become bushwhackers southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can not even be bothered to join the official southern army and which i presume they think is for sissies. i am afraid lee lost me right there. it easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes represent if we have some independent reason to like them and or feel as if we know them in some way and then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. not so here. we aren not properly introduced to jake for at least an hour while when we are and it becomes clear he a gormless pimple of a man and who isn not a confederate by choice so much as by habit the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does and whose psychology is purely immitative. the people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. i found myself cheering whenever the northern cavalry appeared on the screen. i thought represent good kill the rebels and end the damned war and let me go home. aggravating this problem is the horrible and horrible dialogue. everyone speaks in the same whining southern accent. i have heard accents from all over the english speaking world and this is the worst of them all. i do not care if southerners really did talk like that and it simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. and believe me and we do listen to it for the full two hours represent lee picture is a talky one and largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical and say everything three times and folksy drawl. it would help if they talked faster and but not much. can not these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate. in short represent the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life and who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech and who do not bathe often enough and to whom nothing of interest happens and despite their being involved in a war. good points. jewel was nice to look at and and so was the scenery. but i have complaints even here. the cinematography and nicely framed and looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake while and as for jewel and we were teased with her body and but never actually allowed to gaze upon it and which i think is the least we were owed.
i wish more movies were two hours long. on the other hand and i wish more american civil war movies were merely two hours long. gone with the wind and gettysburg that about the length i have come to expect while although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted while and even gettysburg lasted as long as it did because things happened in the course of it. by contrast ang lee film is bloated and uneventful. it actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. that wasn not a compliment. it really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation represent at the time it feels as though it will never end and afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all. the film gets off on the wrong foot and as lee plays his interminable credits over the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. the central two are jake and the son of german immigrants who are staunch supporters of lincoln and and jack and an equally staunch southerner whose values jake shares. (i had to re read that sentence to make sure i hadn not written jack instead of jake at some point or vice versa. ) the two go off to become bushwhackers southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can not even be bothered to join the official southern army and which i presume they think is for sissies. i am afraid lee lost me right there. it easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes represent if we have some independent reason to like them and or feel as if we know them in some way and then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. not so here. we aren not properly introduced to jake for at least an hour while when we are and it becomes clear he a gormless pimple of a man and who isn not a confederate by choice so much as by habit the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does and whose psychology is purely immitative. the people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. i found myself cheering whenever the northern cavalry appeared on the screen. i thought represent good kill the rebels and end the damned war and let me go home. aggravating this problem is the horrible and horrible dialogue. everyone speaks in the same whining southern accent. i have heard accents from all over the english speaking world and this is the worst of them all. i do not care if southerners really did talk like that and it simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. and believe me and we do listen to it for the full two hours represent lee picture is a talky one and largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical and say everything three times and folksy drawl. it would help if they talked faster and but not much. can not these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate. in short represent the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life and who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech and who do not bathe often enough and to whom nothing of interest happens and despite their being involved in a war. good points. jewel was nice to look at and and so was the scenery. but i have complaints even here. the cinematography and nicely framed and looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake while and as for jewel and we were teased with her body and but never actually allowed to gaze upon it and which i think is the least we were owed.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
how does a scotsman in a kilt make love in the bonny purple heather. very and very carefully. now i have the distinct advantage over many other of the reviewers in that i was born in scotland. far too many americans take this simplistic nonsense seriously. it a joke and people and four legs good two legs bad and as orwell had it. jessica lange has an accent that the wells next the sea amateur dramatic society production of brigadoon would turn down. liam neeson apparently popular with the ladies wears his kilt with all the authority of a man whose great grandmama once stepped off the train at edinburgh waverley. and the auld enemy. where would the scots be without them to hate and blame for everything. messrs roth and cox and hurt should be ashamed for indulging in such racist stereotyping. robin hood prince of thieves seems a masterpiece of historical accuracy in comparison. and at least alan rickman was funny.
how does a scotsman in a kilt make love in the bonny purple heather. very and very carefully. now i have the distinct advantage over many other of the reviewers in that i was born in scotland. far too many americans take this simplistic nonsense seriously. it a joke and people and four legs good two legs bad and as orwell had it. jessica lange has an accent that the wells next the sea amateur dramatic society production of brigadoon would turn down. liam neeson apparently popular with the ladies wears his kilt with all the authority of a man whose great grandmama once stepped off the train at edinburgh waverley. and the auld enemy. where would the scots be without them to hate and blame for everything. messrs roth and cox and hurt should be ashamed for indulging in such racist stereotyping. robin hood prince of thieves seems a masterpiece of historical accuracy in comparison. and at least alan rickman was funny.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
born and raised and and educated in scotland and i was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. worse yet and the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another and by implication or verbally. to view it and one would think that 18th century scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. lange was a joke acting as the young mother at age 49 but liam neeson was even worse. taking a bath in a scottish loch is not commonplace as they portrayed him but and it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. save your money and watch pinnochio.
born and raised and and educated in scotland and i was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. worse yet and the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another and by implication or verbally. to view it and one would think that 18th century scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. lange was a joke acting as the young mother at age 49 but liam neeson was even worse. taking a bath in a scottish loch is not commonplace as they portrayed him but and it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. save your money and watch pinnochio.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie was a long build up with no climax. people whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds and or have none. way too often this movie got soft. i am not saying that soft movies are bad. but no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a t bone steak. this movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture and but it ended up being a petty bar brawl. and there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was while tim roth character (and yes and he plays him well). rob roy was a weak hero with no knowledge of how to use a sword and and the way he won was a disgrace. as a drama this movie had it periods and but the best performance in it has to go the nature of scotland. this is one tad breath short of being termed as soap in my book.
this movie was a long build up with no climax. people whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds and or have none. way too often this movie got soft. i am not saying that soft movies are bad. but no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a t bone steak. this movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture and but it ended up being a petty bar brawl. and there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was while tim roth character (and yes and he plays him well). rob roy was a weak hero with no knowledge of how to use a sword and and the way he won was a disgrace. as a drama this movie had it periods and but the best performance in it has to go the nature of scotland. this is one tad breath short of being termed as soap in my book.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have to say the first i watched this film was about 6 years ago and and i actually enjoyed it then. i bought the dvd recently and and upon a second viewing i wondered why i liked it. the acting was awful and and as usual we have the stereo typical clansmen in their fake costumes. the acting was awful at best. tim roth did an ok job as did liam neeson and but i have no idea what jessica lange was thinking. the plot line was good and but the execution was just poor. i am tired of seeing scotland portrayed like this in the films. braveheart was even worse though and which is this films only saving grace. but seriously and people do not speak like that in those days and why do all the actors have to have glaswegian accents. just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. i notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the americans and and to be honest i can see why they would like it and i know they have an infatuation for men in kilts. however and if you are thinking of buying the dvd and i would say spend your money on something else and like a better film.
i have to say the first i watched this film was about 6 years ago and and i actually enjoyed it then. i bought the dvd recently and and upon a second viewing i wondered why i liked it. the acting was awful and and as usual we have the stereo typical clansmen in their fake costumes. the acting was awful at best. tim roth did an ok job as did liam neeson and but i have no idea what jessica lange was thinking. the plot line was good and but the execution was just poor. i am tired of seeing scotland portrayed like this in the films. braveheart was even worse though and which is this films only saving grace. but seriously and people do not speak like that in those days and why do all the actors have to have glaswegian accents. just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. i notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the americans and and to be honest i can see why they would like it and i know they have an infatuation for men in kilts. however and if you are thinking of buying the dvd and i would say spend your money on something else and like a better film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio insistence on a happy ending. conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. it would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. the talented barbara stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. brent and as usual and is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of gig young playing a character named gig young. someone mentions gig young and then who appears but gig young and the actor. worth seeing though far below what it could have been.
here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio insistence on a happy ending. conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. it would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. the talented barbara stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. brent and as usual and is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of gig young playing a character named gig young. someone mentions gig young and then who appears but gig young and the actor. worth seeing though far below what it could have been.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
spoiler alert although i think this one was spoiled coming out of the can… it hard to even imagine that a film with these stars and from this studio and made at this time period and could be so awful and but it is. it is the film biggest flaw by far that it just doesn not make any damn sense. rich widower american aristocrat penn gaylord leaves his small daughter in charge and goes off to world war i where he is killed. then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. the three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years and and some jerk named barclay is trying to take their home away from them. this is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script and more holes in it than the warren report. what happened to the gaylord fortune. if the will is worth half a billion and why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on the munsters. who the devil is this barclay clown. and why is he able to take someone home away from them. the questions just pile on top of more questions. the usually affable and charming george brent is playing barclay and who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone and taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt while yet no one besides fiona (barbara stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. why. none of these questions are ever answered. we instead just follow fiona life from one train wreck to another and the evil barclay takes away her home and her fortune and and even her child. what does she do. shoot him. set him on fire. no and too logical. in a completely improbably wrap up and this woman and who only prior romantic involvement with barclay was and save for the technicality of marriage and rape and suddenly decides mid sentence (literally) that she does not hate him and she loves him. and theyre going to live happily ever after. all of a sudden for no reason in the world and this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. yeah and sure and steal everything in the world that belongs to me and i will fall in love with you. on what planet does that happen. i can only guess the reason i never heard of this film before i happened to catch it on turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.
spoiler alert although i think this one was spoiled coming out of the can… it hard to even imagine that a film with these stars and from this studio and made at this time period and could be so awful and but it is. it is the film biggest flaw by far that it just doesn not make any damn sense. rich widower american aristocrat penn gaylord leaves his small daughter in charge and goes off to world war i where he is killed. then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. the three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years and and some jerk named barclay is trying to take their home away from them. this is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script and more holes in it than the warren report. what happened to the gaylord fortune. if the will is worth half a billion and why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on the munsters. who the devil is this barclay clown. and why is he able to take someone home away from them. the questions just pile on top of more questions. the usually affable and charming george brent is playing barclay and who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone and taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt while yet no one besides fiona (barbara stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. why. none of these questions are ever answered. we instead just follow fiona life from one train wreck to another and the evil barclay takes away her home and her fortune and and even her child. what does she do. shoot him. set him on fire. no and too logical. in a completely improbably wrap up and this woman and who only prior romantic involvement with barclay was and save for the technicality of marriage and rape and suddenly decides mid sentence (literally) that she does not hate him and she loves him. and theyre going to live happily ever after. all of a sudden for no reason in the world and this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. yeah and sure and steal everything in the world that belongs to me and i will fall in love with you. on what planet does that happen. i can only guess the reason i never heard of this film before i happened to catch it on turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
when i would seen the name of this movie and i would always thought it was a musical. like the harvey girls. it not. it a pudding that overcooked and hit the kitchen ceiling and and was pried off and cobbled together. no music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable. it starts with patriarch james woods telling the eldest of his three daughters and a small child who grows to be barbara stanwyck and that she must maintain the family name and home. we thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. and it is and for a brief time. then it turns into the story of cold hearted stanwyck fight against lawyer george brent. why is she so dead set against him. well and why else. as we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by stanwyck and she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself and of course) by marrying. she hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin and who was in fact budding lawyer brent. lest anyone think the child they had and a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot and is well and you know . they had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together and he was conceived. one of her sisters is in love with a painter named gig young and who is played by gig young. the other sister tries to take him away. etc. and etc. it is a shrill and unengaging mess well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.
when i would seen the name of this movie and i would always thought it was a musical. like the harvey girls. it not. it a pudding that overcooked and hit the kitchen ceiling and and was pried off and cobbled together. no music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable. it starts with patriarch james woods telling the eldest of his three daughters and a small child who grows to be barbara stanwyck and that she must maintain the family name and home. we thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. and it is and for a brief time. then it turns into the story of cold hearted stanwyck fight against lawyer george brent. why is she so dead set against him. well and why else. as we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by stanwyck and she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself and of course) by marrying. she hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin and who was in fact budding lawyer brent. lest anyone think the child they had and a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot and is well and you know . they had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together and he was conceived. one of her sisters is in love with a painter named gig young and who is played by gig young. the other sister tries to take him away. etc. and etc. it is a shrill and unengaging mess well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i do not think you can get much worse then this. put together bad actors and fake limbs and and three stupid stories and what do you get. this b rate pointless excuse for a movie. the first story immediately shows the bad video quality and the acting is just really pathetic and especially when you bring in the 25 year old posing as a grandma with the usually grandma bun over the ears bit. plus and the man is ok and but the woman is rather ugly. you look great. not. the werewolf in this one was the best one out of all three i would say and but its still not impressive since it was all bad costume. the face on the woman later was decent enough for halloween but not for a werewolf movie. the more stories you go through the worse it gets. there are two lesbians in this next one who are completely retarded its ridiculous. the whole i want to be a werewolf and too how could you do this to me. was silly to say. you asked for it now get over it. the werewolf will not even be spoken of. its a rat. the third one has no point. almost forty five minutes of running and boring narration make up this story and the whole switch thing still do not make it interesting. boring. music and yes and bad. who couldn not even hear some parts it was stupid. animals effects were either rat or pig like which was stupid. they couldn not use lion sounds. guess not and good movies use that. well and i equals f you enjoy b rates this is good for you. i got this movie since i am a hardcore werewolf fan and i will buy any werewolf movie and watch it more then once and but thats just me. if you prefer good ones and do not waste your money. i beg you.
i do not think you can get much worse then this. put together bad actors and fake limbs and and three stupid stories and what do you get. this b rate pointless excuse for a movie. the first story immediately shows the bad video quality and the acting is just really pathetic and especially when you bring in the 25 year old posing as a grandma with the usually grandma bun over the ears bit. plus and the man is ok and but the woman is rather ugly. you look great. not. the werewolf in this one was the best one out of all three i would say and but its still not impressive since it was all bad costume. the face on the woman later was decent enough for halloween but not for a werewolf movie. the more stories you go through the worse it gets. there are two lesbians in this next one who are completely retarded its ridiculous. the whole i want to be a werewolf and too how could you do this to me. was silly to say. you asked for it now get over it. the werewolf will not even be spoken of. its a rat. the third one has no point. almost forty five minutes of running and boring narration make up this story and the whole switch thing still do not make it interesting. boring. music and yes and bad. who couldn not even hear some parts it was stupid. animals effects were either rat or pig like which was stupid. they couldn not use lion sounds. guess not and good movies use that. well and i equals f you enjoy b rates this is good for you. i got this movie since i am a hardcore werewolf fan and i will buy any werewolf movie and watch it more then once and but thats just me. if you prefer good ones and do not waste your money. i beg you.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
from the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes keanu i am so wooden i could be a plank me reeves look like an oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). the best thing about it is the box of eraticate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and twist). wish i would spent the £3. 99 it cost me on something else and like erm. natural born killers represent directors cut. if you do buy this and youre really in for a disappointment and do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. if youre looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. however if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere and like dog soldiers and wolfen and romasanta representthe werewolf hunt.
from the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes keanu i am so wooden i could be a plank me reeves look like an oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). the best thing about it is the box of eraticate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and twist). wish i would spent the £3. 99 it cost me on something else and like erm. natural born killers represent directors cut. if you do buy this and youre really in for a disappointment and do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. if youre looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. however if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere and like dog soldiers and wolfen and romasanta representthe werewolf hunt.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i would not spend a lot of time nor energy on this comment. i just want to add it because all the comments were so positive i felt like i just had to let people know that not everyone is so thrilled and let alone intellectually provoked by this attempt at creating a captivating philosophical cinematic enigma. some scenes seemed promising and playing with visual dimensions and but couldn not hold up the rest. i felt like i was stoned for the first time again and having semi philosophical conversations with fellow adolescents. what a futile attempt to raise dutch cinema to new heights. i would rather watch jesus is een palestijn and without all the pretentions and with straight forward humor and also raising questions about life and the realities we create for ourselves. gert de graff is not jean luc godard or tarkovsky and appearantly never will be.
i would not spend a lot of time nor energy on this comment. i just want to add it because all the comments were so positive i felt like i just had to let people know that not everyone is so thrilled and let alone intellectually provoked by this attempt at creating a captivating philosophical cinematic enigma. some scenes seemed promising and playing with visual dimensions and but couldn not hold up the rest. i felt like i was stoned for the first time again and having semi philosophical conversations with fellow adolescents. what a futile attempt to raise dutch cinema to new heights. i would rather watch jesus is een palestijn and without all the pretentions and with straight forward humor and also raising questions about life and the realities we create for ourselves. gert de graff is not jean luc godard or tarkovsky and appearantly never will be.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
although properly warned i actually sat down to watch this movie. in part because i usually give every movie an even break and and because i thought that a single movie couldn not be that bad. i stand corrected. not even george kennedy and barry bostwick or ben stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did i laugh. namely during the simon says scene. the other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. and some of them you actually see coming a mile away. this movie just hasn not got what it takes to be a good parody like airplane. (i plus ii) and naked gun (i plus ii plus iii) and or scary movie. they all had a. funny gags and b. good dialog and most important of all c. unforgettable quotes. men in white has got d. none of the above. to call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. avoid this movie anyway you can. consider yourselves warned.
although properly warned i actually sat down to watch this movie. in part because i usually give every movie an even break and and because i thought that a single movie couldn not be that bad. i stand corrected. not even george kennedy and barry bostwick or ben stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did i laugh. namely during the simon says scene. the other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. and some of them you actually see coming a mile away. this movie just hasn not got what it takes to be a good parody like airplane. (i plus ii) and naked gun (i plus ii plus iii) and or scary movie. they all had a. funny gags and b. good dialog and most important of all c. unforgettable quotes. men in white has got d. none of the above. to call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. avoid this movie anyway you can. consider yourselves warned.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film is so bad and it made me want to vomit. poorly produced and a complete laugh free zone. why in the name of god would you spoof a movie which to a degree is a spoof (and a damn funny one at that) as it stands. the sets are laughable and the effects so bad that they aren not even laughable and and the acting farcical. it is a complete mystery why you would even consider watching this lump of garbage. national lampoon once made animal house and which people still consider to be completely and utterly hilarious. now they have been relegated to making tv movies like this lump of . name your expletive and and it could be accurately used to describe this film.
this film is so bad and it made me want to vomit. poorly produced and a complete laugh free zone. why in the name of god would you spoof a movie which to a degree is a spoof (and a damn funny one at that) as it stands. the sets are laughable and the effects so bad that they aren not even laughable and and the acting farcical. it is a complete mystery why you would even consider watching this lump of garbage. national lampoon once made animal house and which people still consider to be completely and utterly hilarious. now they have been relegated to making tv movies like this lump of . name your expletive and and it could be accurately used to describe this film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i wished i would taped men in white so i could watch it again what . you mean you really enjoyed it theo . no i mean i could watch it again to see if it was as retarded and stupid and as embarrassingly unfunny as i can remember it a lot of people have claimed it was made for children . may i suggest it was also made by children . because the whole structure of the script lacks any type of discipline on the part of the producers and writers and much of set pieces seem to have been included because it seemed like a good idea at the time the cast do not help but i genuinely started to feel sorry for them . honestly you can believe that during filming the cast had to lie to their families that they were filming a hard core porn film such was their embarrassment at having to appear in something as dismal as this . to give you an idea of how bad the acting is every time baywatch babe donna dericco disappeared from the narrative i waited patiently for her to reappear then seconds later i forgot she was in the movie . got that . a star from baywatch appears and seconds later you forget theyre in the movie . this tells you all you need to know about the standard of men in white fair enough it trying to be a live action cartoon similar to the goodies ( although the dismals would be a better adjective for this movie ) and though perhaps the movie deserves some credit for never descending to toilet humour and but considering this is a kids movie ( this do not stop itv broadcasting it at 11 pm ) then there should be no near the knuckle humour in it anyway.
i wished i would taped men in white so i could watch it again what . you mean you really enjoyed it theo . no i mean i could watch it again to see if it was as retarded and stupid and as embarrassingly unfunny as i can remember it a lot of people have claimed it was made for children . may i suggest it was also made by children . because the whole structure of the script lacks any type of discipline on the part of the producers and writers and much of set pieces seem to have been included because it seemed like a good idea at the time the cast do not help but i genuinely started to feel sorry for them . honestly you can believe that during filming the cast had to lie to their families that they were filming a hard core porn film such was their embarrassment at having to appear in something as dismal as this . to give you an idea of how bad the acting is every time baywatch babe donna dericco disappeared from the narrative i waited patiently for her to reappear then seconds later i forgot she was in the movie . got that . a star from baywatch appears and seconds later you forget theyre in the movie . this tells you all you need to know about the standard of men in white fair enough it trying to be a live action cartoon similar to the goodies ( although the dismals would be a better adjective for this movie ) and though perhaps the movie deserves some credit for never descending to toilet humour and but considering this is a kids movie ( this do not stop itv broadcasting it at 11 pm ) then there should be no near the knuckle humour in it anyway.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if you see this turkey listed in your tv guide and avoid it like the plague. a steaming great pile of fetid dingoes kidneys doesn not begin to describe how bad this movie is. there is only one funny scene (the memory eraser scene) but even that rates only . 001 on the laughometer (out of 1000). whoever wrote this turkey should be banned from writing another movie for their entire lives.
if you see this turkey listed in your tv guide and avoid it like the plague. a steaming great pile of fetid dingoes kidneys doesn not begin to describe how bad this movie is. there is only one funny scene (the memory eraser scene) but even that rates only . 001 on the laughometer (out of 1000). whoever wrote this turkey should be banned from writing another movie for their entire lives.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
well and not yet and at least. it not listed in the worst 100. so let all team up and and put it in it rightful place. this is truly a bad movie. (and i liked ishtar. ) while ).
well and not yet and at least. it not listed in the worst 100. so let all team up and and put it in it rightful place. this is truly a bad movie. (and i liked ishtar. ) while ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if you really and truly want to waste two hours of your life and do the following represent 1) look through the tv listings. 2) find the movie men in white. 3) when men in white comes on and sit and watch. and that it. after sitting through two hours of bad puns and dreadful (and not that funny) movie references and and experiencing something with possibly the lowest production values ever made in recent history and you will have wasted two hours of your life and and wonder exactly why. why did i do this. i was stupid enough to think that this film might actually be some good. it wasn not. but and on the other hand and if youre old enough to remember power rangers and you might spot some familiar faces during the film. presumably to save on production costs and saban (who also make power rangers) and decided to liberally sprinkle old monster costumes from everyone favourite tacky toy spawning franchise throughout the film. i spotted quite a few old monsters from episodes i saw from when i was a kid and so i guess it could at least be said it has some nostalgia value. but and if you want to see actual power rangers monsters and go watch power rangers itself. it much better than this piece of garbage. (and that saying something. ).
if you really and truly want to waste two hours of your life and do the following represent 1) look through the tv listings. 2) find the movie men in white. 3) when men in white comes on and sit and watch. and that it. after sitting through two hours of bad puns and dreadful (and not that funny) movie references and and experiencing something with possibly the lowest production values ever made in recent history and you will have wasted two hours of your life and and wonder exactly why. why did i do this. i was stupid enough to think that this film might actually be some good. it wasn not. but and on the other hand and if youre old enough to remember power rangers and you might spot some familiar faces during the film. presumably to save on production costs and saban (who also make power rangers) and decided to liberally sprinkle old monster costumes from everyone favourite tacky toy spawning franchise throughout the film. i spotted quite a few old monsters from episodes i saw from when i was a kid and so i guess it could at least be said it has some nostalgia value. but and if you want to see actual power rangers monsters and go watch power rangers itself. it much better than this piece of garbage. (and that saying something. ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i may have seen worse films than this and but i if i have and i do not remember. or possibly blocked them out. who knows and if i was to undergo hypnotherapy and i may remember them and along and maybe and with been abducted by aliens as a child and or other traumas. if so and i would happily exchange those memories for the ones i have of watching this film. i should give the film some credit represent it did produce an emotional response. i actually started to become angry at scenes that spoofed other films and tv programs and that this travesty was dirtying them by association. i am terrified that i may be unable to watch films like dr strangelove again without this film flitting across my minds eye.
i may have seen worse films than this and but i if i have and i do not remember. or possibly blocked them out. who knows and if i was to undergo hypnotherapy and i may remember them and along and maybe and with been abducted by aliens as a child and or other traumas. if so and i would happily exchange those memories for the ones i have of watching this film. i should give the film some credit represent it did produce an emotional response. i actually started to become angry at scenes that spoofed other films and tv programs and that this travesty was dirtying them by association. i am terrified that i may be unable to watch films like dr strangelove again without this film flitting across my minds eye.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i watched this on a weekend afternoon as there was simply nothing else on and it would have been more entertaining to chew off my feet and probably less painful. i urge anyone to watch this just to see how turgidly awful a movie can be and surely it was deliberate. i cringed at every futile attempt at humour carried out in such a childish and unrehearsed and badly executed way that it was beyond belief. this is the movie that makes spiceworld look like goodfellas and think i am exaggerating. well give it airtime and think again. dreadful and utterly dreadful. if this wasn not a prank then the director and anyone else responsible for this should be removed and promptly shot after being forced to watch this film again.
i watched this on a weekend afternoon as there was simply nothing else on and it would have been more entertaining to chew off my feet and probably less painful. i urge anyone to watch this just to see how turgidly awful a movie can be and surely it was deliberate. i cringed at every futile attempt at humour carried out in such a childish and unrehearsed and badly executed way that it was beyond belief. this is the movie that makes spiceworld look like goodfellas and think i am exaggerating. well give it airtime and think again. dreadful and utterly dreadful. if this wasn not a prank then the director and anyone else responsible for this should be removed and promptly shot after being forced to watch this film again.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
words fail me. this film was extremely difficult to watch and in hindsight i really wish i hadn not done it. although i attempted to sit through it until the end credits i have to admit i couldn not last for more than hour and so my opinion could be unfair. however and this film would require the most impressive final third in the history of film making in order for it to be given a review which is anything but vicious. please do not watch any part of this film.
words fail me. this film was extremely difficult to watch and in hindsight i really wish i hadn not done it. although i attempted to sit through it until the end credits i have to admit i couldn not last for more than hour and so my opinion could be unfair. however and this film would require the most impressive final third in the history of film making in order for it to be given a review which is anything but vicious. please do not watch any part of this film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie has to be the biggest pile of steaming c^p i have everseen and what more can i say than bad and bad and bad and bad and bad and bad. there is nothing to save this amovie and i pray that they never even talk about making a sequel. if you are thinking about watching this then you should know that the storyline is that two garbage men get dragged into saving the earth. movies like men in black has been torn to shreds and put back together to make this comedy but have totally failed. please avoid this movie and (save yourself).
this movie has to be the biggest pile of steaming c^p i have everseen and what more can i say than bad and bad and bad and bad and bad and bad. there is nothing to save this amovie and i pray that they never even talk about making a sequel. if you are thinking about watching this then you should know that the storyline is that two garbage men get dragged into saving the earth. movies like men in black has been torn to shreds and put back together to make this comedy but have totally failed. please avoid this movie and (save yourself).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
you should know that i am the type of person that watches even the worst of movies to the finish and often out of sheer morbid curiosity. i even watched leprechaun to the end before giving in to the temptation of tearing out my eyes and stamping on them. you should also know that this movie was in my vcr for less than half an hour before i made a frantic leap for the stop button and dashed back the rental store just to put as much distance between me and it as possible.
you should know that i am the type of person that watches even the worst of movies to the finish and often out of sheer morbid curiosity. i even watched leprechaun to the end before giving in to the temptation of tearing out my eyes and stamping on them. you should also know that this movie was in my vcr for less than half an hour before i made a frantic leap for the stop button and dashed back the rental store just to put as much distance between me and it as possible.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
a friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find and and i have a good laugh watching them with him. i have told him if he puts this one on again i will be forced to give him a good kicking. he knows i am serious.
a friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find and and i have a good laugh watching them with him. i have told him if he puts this one on again i will be forced to give him a good kicking. he knows i am serious.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
why did i waste my time with this movie. there was not a single funny joke or line throughout. the slapstick wasn not even mildly funny. i mean really and an out of control vacuum sucking pipe. why has the national lampoon name been attached to this movie. even christmas vacation was better than this (i actually thought that film was very funny). avoid like the plague.
why did i waste my time with this movie. there was not a single funny joke or line throughout. the slapstick wasn not even mildly funny. i mean really and an out of control vacuum sucking pipe. why has the national lampoon name been attached to this movie. even christmas vacation was better than this (i actually thought that film was very funny). avoid like the plague.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i only lasted 15mins before self preservation jerked me out of the empty eyed drooling stupor that this film effortlessly induced and propelled me screaming back to the video shop armed for bear. to say the film was bad would be a missed opportunity to use words interspersed with characters from the top keys on my keyboard (just to keep these comments clean). one to be avoided.
i only lasted 15mins before self preservation jerked me out of the empty eyed drooling stupor that this film effortlessly induced and propelled me screaming back to the video shop armed for bear. to say the film was bad would be a missed opportunity to use words interspersed with characters from the top keys on my keyboard (just to keep these comments clean). one to be avoided.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. the first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. you shouldn not really decide to watch this based on my review or not. i saw so little of it i shouldn not even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it. couldn not they have just made earnest does dallas.
it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. the first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. you shouldn not really decide to watch this based on my review or not. i saw so little of it i shouldn not even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it. couldn not they have just made earnest does dallas.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
in the title i write that the story is ludicrous. below i will elaborate and tell you why it and in my humble opinion and ruins this movie. gere and danes are doing their jobs and and while it not their best work and it quite ok. the rest of the cast and though and is doing a really poor job. mind you and this is not entirely the actors fault. the problem is that gere and danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. all other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth and or the character is such a cliché that it doesn not matter how hard the actors try. the director has a bit of a se7en complex and but looking merely at the direction and i think he does an ok job. but the story. this is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. first of all it a bad movie script. the characters are shallow (except for gere and danes characters) and the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. besides this and the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. it the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals and regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. it also the kind of movie that says and albeit only between the lines and that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial and judge or jury. and of course and according to the movie and everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance. so and if youre going to film school and need an example of a bad script and or if youre writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. see it. for everyone else and i recommend another movie.
in the title i write that the story is ludicrous. below i will elaborate and tell you why it and in my humble opinion and ruins this movie. gere and danes are doing their jobs and and while it not their best work and it quite ok. the rest of the cast and though and is doing a really poor job. mind you and this is not entirely the actors fault. the problem is that gere and danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. all other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth and or the character is such a cliché that it doesn not matter how hard the actors try. the director has a bit of a se7en complex and but looking merely at the direction and i think he does an ok job. but the story. this is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. first of all it a bad movie script. the characters are shallow (except for gere and danes characters) and the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. besides this and the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. it the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals and regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. it also the kind of movie that says and albeit only between the lines and that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial and judge or jury. and of course and according to the movie and everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance. so and if youre going to film school and need an example of a bad script and or if youre writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. see it. for everyone else and i recommend another movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
although the flock has some pretty good acting by veteran richard gere and and some okay shots that might harken some back to the silence of the lambs days and the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere. the film is about erroll babbage (gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. his office thrusts upon him his replacement and allison lowry (claire danes and stardust) and who quickly discovers that babbage is obsessed with his job. and that job ain not very fun. he monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. allison goes with erroll on many calls to check up on his flock of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. but erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren not. he taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants pasts. it is this good justification that challenges the audience on some level and letting us see how brutal erroll is and yet how out of touch he become (by being too close to his job). when a teenage girl goes missing in erroll area and he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. but how could he know. is erroll that good at his job. allison challenges him and erroll pushes back. their battles become as fierce as erroll need to find this missing girl. although the set up for the story was okay and it do not have any umpf. i will give credit to richard gere and however and who plays the erroll character very well. battling retirement. worried about everyone who near his flock. disgusted with those he responsible for overseeing. disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. quite a change in character portrayal for gere. but beyond him there not much else. some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable. i will be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. but that suspension has limits. the biggest push against those limits is the destruction of extremely vital crime scenes. someone as meticulous as erroll would know that moving a body would be a huge no no. or trampling through a crime scene. or moving evidence. it went beyond and hurt the film to no end. the other damaging part of this film is that we never get into clair danes character and allison. she almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and were never privy to what her intension might be represent will she stay or leave. will she end up like erroll if she does stay. this isn not a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground and but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.
although the flock has some pretty good acting by veteran richard gere and and some okay shots that might harken some back to the silence of the lambs days and the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere. the film is about erroll babbage (gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. his office thrusts upon him his replacement and allison lowry (claire danes and stardust) and who quickly discovers that babbage is obsessed with his job. and that job ain not very fun. he monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. allison goes with erroll on many calls to check up on his flock of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. but erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren not. he taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants pasts. it is this good justification that challenges the audience on some level and letting us see how brutal erroll is and yet how out of touch he become (by being too close to his job). when a teenage girl goes missing in erroll area and he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. but how could he know. is erroll that good at his job. allison challenges him and erroll pushes back. their battles become as fierce as erroll need to find this missing girl. although the set up for the story was okay and it do not have any umpf. i will give credit to richard gere and however and who plays the erroll character very well. battling retirement. worried about everyone who near his flock. disgusted with those he responsible for overseeing. disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. quite a change in character portrayal for gere. but beyond him there not much else. some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable. i will be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. but that suspension has limits. the biggest push against those limits is the destruction of extremely vital crime scenes. someone as meticulous as erroll would know that moving a body would be a huge no no. or trampling through a crime scene. or moving evidence. it went beyond and hurt the film to no end. the other damaging part of this film is that we never get into clair danes character and allison. she almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and were never privy to what her intension might be represent will she stay or leave. will she end up like erroll if she does stay. this isn not a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground and but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i watched the movie the flock because of the casting of gere and danes and because the story synopsis sounded interesting. this was one of the worst movies i have seen in a long while (and i have seen some turkeys. ) i have never posted online before but this movie was so awful i had to do so. i suppose the problems begin begin with the script which was so amateurish it unbelievable. the story makes zero sense and the dialogue is so trite it nauseating. poor gere and he deserves so much better. as for the gere or danes on screen matchup and because of the horrible writing and one doesn not believe either character for a single minute. i will bet gere wishes he could buy back the negative and were such a thing possible. it a shame to see talent wasted so badly and not to mention i wish i could get my 2 hours back. (i know what youre thinking. how do i really feel. ).
i watched the movie the flock because of the casting of gere and danes and because the story synopsis sounded interesting. this was one of the worst movies i have seen in a long while (and i have seen some turkeys. ) i have never posted online before but this movie was so awful i had to do so. i suppose the problems begin begin with the script which was so amateurish it unbelievable. the story makes zero sense and the dialogue is so trite it nauseating. poor gere and he deserves so much better. as for the gere or danes on screen matchup and because of the horrible writing and one doesn not believe either character for a single minute. i will bet gere wishes he could buy back the negative and were such a thing possible. it a shame to see talent wasted so badly and not to mention i wish i could get my 2 hours back. (i know what youre thinking. how do i really feel. ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i just saw this film yesterday. my girlfriend wanted to see it only because of richard gere. i feel i wasted my time and money and told my girlfriend it the last time we go to see a film just because a certain actor or actress is in it. i hope she learned the lesson because i had trouble keeping her in her seat. as of me and since i paid already and i wanted to see the end at least and just in the hope something good would turn up and but i do not hold my breath and and luckily so cause i would have been a victim of the film just the same. this is not a black and white film and it a black and black one. the main character (richard gere) is almost as bad as his registrants and and all sex offenders are portrayed as unredeemable hard core criminals and the bad ones among them were really very very bad. speak of a cliché and the exploitation of a typical us phobia. richard gere acting was good as usual but the blond girl that supposed to replace him was wishy washy at best. totally unconvincing for the job. the film tries to exploit a popular theme and gives it a cheap and dramatic and and sensational turn that just is unreal. they just use sex offenders as an excuse to indulge in cheap violent acts of murders and vigilante beating and rape and torture something that almost seems gratuitous. they even have a wolf attacking people in the film how low can you get. i gather the film would not come out in the usa and will go straight to dvd. that were it should have stayed in other countries too and but because it hollywood and richard gere they just had to show it. believe me and without gere and the film is not even worth a b series movie.
i just saw this film yesterday. my girlfriend wanted to see it only because of richard gere. i feel i wasted my time and money and told my girlfriend it the last time we go to see a film just because a certain actor or actress is in it. i hope she learned the lesson because i had trouble keeping her in her seat. as of me and since i paid already and i wanted to see the end at least and just in the hope something good would turn up and but i do not hold my breath and and luckily so cause i would have been a victim of the film just the same. this is not a black and white film and it a black and black one. the main character (richard gere) is almost as bad as his registrants and and all sex offenders are portrayed as unredeemable hard core criminals and the bad ones among them were really very very bad. speak of a cliché and the exploitation of a typical us phobia. richard gere acting was good as usual but the blond girl that supposed to replace him was wishy washy at best. totally unconvincing for the job. the film tries to exploit a popular theme and gives it a cheap and dramatic and and sensational turn that just is unreal. they just use sex offenders as an excuse to indulge in cheap violent acts of murders and vigilante beating and rape and torture something that almost seems gratuitous. they even have a wolf attacking people in the film how low can you get. i gather the film would not come out in the usa and will go straight to dvd. that were it should have stayed in other countries too and but because it hollywood and richard gere they just had to show it. believe me and without gere and the film is not even worth a b series movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the flock is not really a movie. it a wannabe movie and with wannabe actors. not including richard gere and he gave an excellent performance and but when only one of the actors truly gives himself to his character and and the rest of the cast is just acting. the result is pathetic and just like this movie. you see and the idea of acting is to hide the fact that youre acting. what the hell was claire dains doing in this one. she the most inappropriate actress for this character. in 99. 9% of the movie she looked extremely out of place and out of everything. the only thing she was doing was asking stupid questions and like do you really think so. and and making silly faces. i was embarrassed by her acting and seriously and and i used to like her. she the romantic movie type and i do not know who picked her among all the actresses out there. lol and and seeing avril lavigne. this really made me laugh. anyway. if you want to get the feeling of throwing up and this movie will do the job for you. i wish i could vote 5.
the flock is not really a movie. it a wannabe movie and with wannabe actors. not including richard gere and he gave an excellent performance and but when only one of the actors truly gives himself to his character and and the rest of the cast is just acting. the result is pathetic and just like this movie. you see and the idea of acting is to hide the fact that youre acting. what the hell was claire dains doing in this one. she the most inappropriate actress for this character. in 99. 9% of the movie she looked extremely out of place and out of everything. the only thing she was doing was asking stupid questions and like do you really think so. and and making silly faces. i was embarrassed by her acting and seriously and and i used to like her. she the romantic movie type and i do not know who picked her among all the actresses out there. lol and and seeing avril lavigne. this really made me laugh. anyway. if you want to get the feeling of throwing up and this movie will do the job for you. i wish i could vote 5.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
a bad rip off attempt on seven and complete with sub second grade acting and awful camera work and half baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. yeah and them sex offenders and they live next door and youre gonna get raped and really. no surprises from the vice terminatrix woman and she acts as always as convincingly as a piece of wood. richard gere keeps on sliding lower and lower and is about as low here as a late steven seagal. the singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she dead in bed while and even the wolf was sub par (although she was the best performer in the movie) maybe they fed her before the shots and or something. unlike seven and which had a (made up and but interesting) story and to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country and this movie seems to focus on a us only obsession. if one doesn not care much about sex offenders and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain and suffering and death there is little reason to see it and or to be afraid. there are some body part fetishes and some snuff and but the gore is less then mediocre and and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore and because it is not gory enough. don not waste time on this one.
a bad rip off attempt on seven and complete with sub second grade acting and awful camera work and half baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. yeah and them sex offenders and they live next door and youre gonna get raped and really. no surprises from the vice terminatrix woman and she acts as always as convincingly as a piece of wood. richard gere keeps on sliding lower and lower and is about as low here as a late steven seagal. the singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she dead in bed while and even the wolf was sub par (although she was the best performer in the movie) maybe they fed her before the shots and or something. unlike seven and which had a (made up and but interesting) story and to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country and this movie seems to focus on a us only obsession. if one doesn not care much about sex offenders and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain and suffering and death there is little reason to see it and or to be afraid. there are some body part fetishes and some snuff and but the gore is less then mediocre and and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore and because it is not gory enough. don not waste time on this one.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
first this deserves about 5 stars due to acting (some which would give me a better subjective opinion and not an objective one as it should by giving this one and well deserved and star) but then i know that those facts are used for the actor(s) names to increase the rating of something like this. i do have a problem with such productions while yet another attempt (just like untraceable) of a systematic propagandistic feature promoting government intrusion on your rights( how interesting that it comes at a moment when ips providers trying to preferentiate equals censor information and and the americans and canadians are fighting against that at this very moments). this time is not by labeling torrent file transfers as evil ( that one was intended to remind you of such feeling whenever you transfer data on the net) and but by literally attempting in creating a sexual frustrated population as a whole. seems like fear promotion is hollywoods norm this days and especially when coming to thrillers which is the most on demand motion picture genre for past 2 decades or so equals most viewed and best way to try influence the society as a whole. such levels of violence are depicted in this 2 features of morally and ethical people and that it gives a new much needed meaning to anti heroes figures. make no mistake and this is not dexter which was meant to be high quality entertainment. stop selling fear please and the world would be a better place without it and the dollars made of it. the opening scene and generally the first 10 minutes really give a frightful picture of an erroll babbage that is clearlly suffering of sexual frustration. the way he handles the black male is very disturbing if not outright racist(for sure a cliche at least) ( in real life someone would probably get a beating for it and you will see what i mean). the second scene ( with claire danes character present) is even more extreme. at that point i realized and in my opinion that erroll babbage is a very dangerous individual to people around him. how many people and that have seen or will see this movie and have never been hold down(regarding both sexes) out of self and common gratification. typically the movie gives an extreme criminal case(that unfortunately did and is and will likely happen again sometime and somewhere) but fingers everyone else indirectly as well as you could become that and etc. anyone that is familiar with sigmund freud and jung will know very well that sexuality is not something to be judged let alone asses and by such fanatical hero here. safe sex in its many forms is healthy and not some evil that apparently richard gere character is obsessed with and on his way for some sexual crusade. have we not learned anything from the abundant recent scandals involving priests and young boys. or for how long an american teenager can see extreme violence on pg 13 but he can not even see a woman breast until r 18. ( yet the industry targets them with this very same sexual perversions like american pie series for example). raise the kids tester one levels but frustrate them and drive them underground in developing fetishes to unhealthy extremes. all sexual activities(upon mutual acceptance) integrates individuals better then some rightous nut case and that blames his misfortunes and shortcomings on the lives of others( a new german movie that would work great in comparing this 2 distinct and world apart features on the very same subject). here and like in that movie and you will probably appreciate the actors for well portraying the opposite of what they should have been. i am very disappointed with richard gere especially after the recent hunting party and a feature where he really shines and about a more realistic hero( after real facts as well). but then it just reminds me that all those people are only actors that get paid to play someone political and social agenda. the flock and untraceable 2 heads of the same hidden beast)))it just reminds you and if know anyone with similar views on the subject as a whole and as erroll babbage has those here and to stay clear of them for their own safety. they would kill my family faster then any 0. 00001 chances of paul jerrod in anyone life would. in the end i recommend this to anyone thinking negative here about my assesment of this particular movie ( and untraceable actually) and so you can likely have similar thoughts as i did. nothing sweeter then a propagandistic movie shooting itself in the foot. ))))for once i agree with the rating and this is not a feature for teenagers or kids while simply because at best would confuse them even more then the common belief of money plus fame plus fashion and how that relates to sexuality. scream series and movies as such at least have a defined entertainment value(even if a dumb one in my opinion). but this one is just another trust me i know what is good for you deeply (not so well done i might add) subliminal messages.
first this deserves about 5 stars due to acting (some which would give me a better subjective opinion and not an objective one as it should by giving this one and well deserved and star) but then i know that those facts are used for the actor(s) names to increase the rating of something like this. i do have a problem with such productions while yet another attempt (just like untraceable) of a systematic propagandistic feature promoting government intrusion on your rights( how interesting that it comes at a moment when ips providers trying to preferentiate equals censor information and and the americans and canadians are fighting against that at this very moments). this time is not by labeling torrent file transfers as evil ( that one was intended to remind you of such feeling whenever you transfer data on the net) and but by literally attempting in creating a sexual frustrated population as a whole. seems like fear promotion is hollywoods norm this days and especially when coming to thrillers which is the most on demand motion picture genre for past 2 decades or so equals most viewed and best way to try influence the society as a whole. such levels of violence are depicted in this 2 features of morally and ethical people and that it gives a new much needed meaning to anti heroes figures. make no mistake and this is not dexter which was meant to be high quality entertainment. stop selling fear please and the world would be a better place without it and the dollars made of it. the opening scene and generally the first 10 minutes really give a frightful picture of an erroll babbage that is clearlly suffering of sexual frustration. the way he handles the black male is very disturbing if not outright racist(for sure a cliche at least) ( in real life someone would probably get a beating for it and you will see what i mean). the second scene ( with claire danes character present) is even more extreme. at that point i realized and in my opinion that erroll babbage is a very dangerous individual to people around him. how many people and that have seen or will see this movie and have never been hold down(regarding both sexes) out of self and common gratification. typically the movie gives an extreme criminal case(that unfortunately did and is and will likely happen again sometime and somewhere) but fingers everyone else indirectly as well as you could become that and etc. anyone that is familiar with sigmund freud and jung will know very well that sexuality is not something to be judged let alone asses and by such fanatical hero here. safe sex in its many forms is healthy and not some evil that apparently richard gere character is obsessed with and on his way for some sexual crusade. have we not learned anything from the abundant recent scandals involving priests and young boys. or for how long an american teenager can see extreme violence on pg 13 but he can not even see a woman breast until r 18. ( yet the industry targets them with this very same sexual perversions like american pie series for example). raise the kids tester one levels but frustrate them and drive them underground in developing fetishes to unhealthy extremes. all sexual activities(upon mutual acceptance) integrates individuals better then some rightous nut case and that blames his misfortunes and shortcomings on the lives of others( a new german movie that would work great in comparing this 2 distinct and world apart features on the very same subject). here and like in that movie and you will probably appreciate the actors for well portraying the opposite of what they should have been. i am very disappointed with richard gere especially after the recent hunting party and a feature where he really shines and about a more realistic hero( after real facts as well). but then it just reminds me that all those people are only actors that get paid to play someone political and social agenda. the flock and untraceable 2 heads of the same hidden beast)))it just reminds you and if know anyone with similar views on the subject as a whole and as erroll babbage has those here and to stay clear of them for their own safety. they would kill my family faster then any 0. 00001 chances of paul jerrod in anyone life would. in the end i recommend this to anyone thinking negative here about my assesment of this particular movie ( and untraceable actually) and so you can likely have similar thoughts as i did. nothing sweeter then a propagandistic movie shooting itself in the foot. ))))for once i agree with the rating and this is not a feature for teenagers or kids while simply because at best would confuse them even more then the common belief of money plus fame plus fashion and how that relates to sexuality. scream series and movies as such at least have a defined entertainment value(even if a dumb one in my opinion). but this one is just another trust me i know what is good for you deeply (not so well done i might add) subliminal messages.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the reasons to watch this knock off. err. tribute to a great movie called se7en represent it on while your channel surfing and there nothing else on. someone pays you to watch it. do yourself a favor and pop in the dvd for se7en and rent it and download it on itunes and or put it in your netflix cue and skip the flock entirely. the flock the same story with with a few changes. furthermore the editing just wreaks of se7en and actually ends up taking you out of the story several times. the worst one is probably the fly over desert helicopter shots and with sounds of people people chattering over the radio and except there are no police helicopters flying overhead in this one. bottom line represent i call it a blatant knock off. if you wanna be nice you can call it a tribute film and go ahead and but either way go watch se7en.
the reasons to watch this knock off. err. tribute to a great movie called se7en represent it on while your channel surfing and there nothing else on. someone pays you to watch it. do yourself a favor and pop in the dvd for se7en and rent it and download it on itunes and or put it in your netflix cue and skip the flock entirely. the flock the same story with with a few changes. furthermore the editing just wreaks of se7en and actually ends up taking you out of the story several times. the worst one is probably the fly over desert helicopter shots and with sounds of people people chattering over the radio and except there are no police helicopters flying overhead in this one. bottom line represent i call it a blatant knock off. if you wanna be nice you can call it a tribute film and go ahead and but either way go watch se7en.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i really have problems rating this movie. it is directed brilliantly and there is obviously a lot of money in it. gere and danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up) and editing and cinematography are excellent. on the other hand and it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes and and and yes and one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire. in purely artistic terms and it is a 9 and but i really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie .
i really have problems rating this movie. it is directed brilliantly and there is obviously a lot of money in it. gere and danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up) and editing and cinematography are excellent. on the other hand and it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes and and and yes and one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire. in purely artistic terms and it is a 9 and but i really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i saw this film last night (about 102 minutes) and do not know what kept me in my seat. i guess i just expected a film with gere would have some value in it eventually but nothing of value ever came on the screen. the story is a silly excuse to pile on shot after shot of bondage and torture. there is not a character in the film that does anything like real life. the cutting style relies on jump cuts and mini flashbacks and overprinting to give weight to this vapid setup of a gang of sadists apparently running free for years and surprise the leader is the victim of an executed killer. i do not see how gere and a buddhist and got involved in this violent and sexist trash.
i saw this film last night (about 102 minutes) and do not know what kept me in my seat. i guess i just expected a film with gere would have some value in it eventually but nothing of value ever came on the screen. the story is a silly excuse to pile on shot after shot of bondage and torture. there is not a character in the film that does anything like real life. the cutting style relies on jump cuts and mini flashbacks and overprinting to give weight to this vapid setup of a gang of sadists apparently running free for years and surprise the leader is the victim of an executed killer. i do not see how gere and a buddhist and got involved in this violent and sexist trash.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
although twenty minutes of love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy and it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. it does have a couple of moments that are funny and but i have seen better by charlie chaplin.
although twenty minutes of love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy and it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. it does have a couple of moments that are funny and but i have seen better by charlie chaplin.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
in 1914 and charlie chaplin began making pictures. these were made for mack sennett (also known as keystone studios) and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. the short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. as a result and the films and though popular in their day and were just awful by today standards. many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. and and regardless of the outcome and keystone sent them straight to theaters. my assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad and as the keystone films with chaplin were very successful. the charlie chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in chaplin career with keystone. by 1915 and he signed a new lucrative contract with essenay studios and the films improved dramatically with chaplin as director. however and at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. no and chaplin as the cute little tramp was still evolving. in 1916 and when he switched to mutual studios and his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot and beating up women and provoking fights with innocent people and etc. ). the final evolution of his little tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full length films. it interesting that this film is called twenty minutes of love since the film only lasts about 10 minutes. oh well. the plot and what little there is and involves the little tramp in the park. a couple wants to neck but inexplicably and charlie insists on practically sitting on the couple lap and really annoying them. i can not understand why and the short consists of charlie wandering about the park annoying these people and some others later in the film. perhaps he was looking for a threesome and i do not know. but the film lacks coherence and just isn not particularly funny even when people start slapping each other and pushing each other in the lake. a typical poor effort before chaplin began to give his character a plot and personality.
in 1914 and charlie chaplin began making pictures. these were made for mack sennett (also known as keystone studios) and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. the short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. as a result and the films and though popular in their day and were just awful by today standards. many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. and and regardless of the outcome and keystone sent them straight to theaters. my assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad and as the keystone films with chaplin were very successful. the charlie chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in chaplin career with keystone. by 1915 and he signed a new lucrative contract with essenay studios and the films improved dramatically with chaplin as director. however and at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. no and chaplin as the cute little tramp was still evolving. in 1916 and when he switched to mutual studios and his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot and beating up women and provoking fights with innocent people and etc. ). the final evolution of his little tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full length films. it interesting that this film is called twenty minutes of love since the film only lasts about 10 minutes. oh well. the plot and what little there is and involves the little tramp in the park. a couple wants to neck but inexplicably and charlie insists on practically sitting on the couple lap and really annoying them. i can not understand why and the short consists of charlie wandering about the park annoying these people and some others later in the film. perhaps he was looking for a threesome and i do not know. but the film lacks coherence and just isn not particularly funny even when people start slapping each other and pushing each other in the lake. a typical poor effort before chaplin began to give his character a plot and personality.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
a quite usual trashy italo western and stupid storyline full of clichés and lack of logic and some mediocre actors and dirty settings and lots of punch fights and people shoot dead on a massive scale. this has nothing to do with django. at least not in my german translated version and this german dvd release is called adios companeros and has macho callaghan fighting against butch cassidy and ironhead because their gang killed his one (he the only survivor). then you have butch cassidy and ironhead fighting each other because they quarreled and the gang split. and you have ironhead fighting against everyone because he just the biggest and most greedy asshole anyway. yeah and that it and no more cleverness in the storyline and hehe. a small role by klaus kinski as reverend cotton is remarkable (that why i bought this dvd). in one scene he attempts to separate two men fighting by hitting them and screaming i said love. and in another scene he wins a competition in throwing horseshoes and goes nuts for a second fantasticfantasticfantastic. it also remarkable that joe damato aka aristide massaccesi did the cinematography i love this master of incompetent exploitation thrash and so it was an aahhh for me.
a quite usual trashy italo western and stupid storyline full of clichés and lack of logic and some mediocre actors and dirty settings and lots of punch fights and people shoot dead on a massive scale. this has nothing to do with django. at least not in my german translated version and this german dvd release is called adios companeros and has macho callaghan fighting against butch cassidy and ironhead because their gang killed his one (he the only survivor). then you have butch cassidy and ironhead fighting each other because they quarreled and the gang split. and you have ironhead fighting against everyone because he just the biggest and most greedy asshole anyway. yeah and that it and no more cleverness in the storyline and hehe. a small role by klaus kinski as reverend cotton is remarkable (that why i bought this dvd). in one scene he attempts to separate two men fighting by hitting them and screaming i said love. and in another scene he wins a competition in throwing horseshoes and goes nuts for a second fantasticfantasticfantastic. it also remarkable that joe damato aka aristide massaccesi did the cinematography i love this master of incompetent exploitation thrash and so it was an aahhh for me.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am a big fan of the spaghetti western genre and and i usually also like most of the cheaply made ones. infamous director demofilo fidani and however and is rightly known for some of the cheapest and trashiest and and and well and worst contributions to the genre. the plots of fidani movies were usually very weak and and since his talent was quite limited and he usually tried to sell the movies by adding famous spaghetti western names like django of sartana to the titles. i the particular case of giù la testa. hombre of 1971 he just took the title of sergio leone giù la testa (aka. duck you sucker) and added hombre. the movie can be found under various titles (fistful of death and western story. ) and i personally bought it under the name adios companeros and which this movie shares with another fidani film with almost the same cast and per una bara piena di dollari and which is also entitled adios companeros in the german language version. the plot is rather weak and it basically follows a guy named macho callaghan (jeff cameron) and his involvement with two rivaling outlaw gangs lead by butch cassidy (jack betts) and ironhead (gordon mitchell). the leading performance by jeff cameron is and kindly stated and not very convincing. neither did i find jack betts very good as butch cassidy. b movie legend gordon mitchell and however and is always worth a try and and although he probably wasn not a very good actor and i always found his performances in the spaghetti westerns quite funny and original and and he actually saved some of fidani movies (such as the rather crappy django and sartana. showdown in the west). there is one very funny and original thing about giù la testa. hombre the great klaus kinski is playing a priest. i could have imagined kinski in any role and but before seeing this movie i would never have guessed that anybody would cast him as a priest. kinski is and once again and great and although he has only little screen time and and one scene and where he breaks up a fight and is probably the only good scene in this. one more interesting thing about this film is that the legendary director and king of sleaze joe damato did the cinematography. giù la testa. hombre is a cheap and crappy film and but nevertheless and it has some funny moments. being a spaghetti western enthusiast and i found it fun to watch and but if youre not and never mind this movie and or watch it only for the purpose of seeing kinski play a priest. negative .
i am a big fan of the spaghetti western genre and and i usually also like most of the cheaply made ones. infamous director demofilo fidani and however and is rightly known for some of the cheapest and trashiest and and and well and worst contributions to the genre. the plots of fidani movies were usually very weak and and since his talent was quite limited and he usually tried to sell the movies by adding famous spaghetti western names like django of sartana to the titles. i the particular case of giù la testa. hombre of 1971 he just took the title of sergio leone giù la testa (aka. duck you sucker) and added hombre. the movie can be found under various titles (fistful of death and western story. ) and i personally bought it under the name adios companeros and which this movie shares with another fidani film with almost the same cast and per una bara piena di dollari and which is also entitled adios companeros in the german language version. the plot is rather weak and it basically follows a guy named macho callaghan (jeff cameron) and his involvement with two rivaling outlaw gangs lead by butch cassidy (jack betts) and ironhead (gordon mitchell). the leading performance by jeff cameron is and kindly stated and not very convincing. neither did i find jack betts very good as butch cassidy. b movie legend gordon mitchell and however and is always worth a try and and although he probably wasn not a very good actor and i always found his performances in the spaghetti westerns quite funny and original and and he actually saved some of fidani movies (such as the rather crappy django and sartana. showdown in the west). there is one very funny and original thing about giù la testa. hombre the great klaus kinski is playing a priest. i could have imagined kinski in any role and but before seeing this movie i would never have guessed that anybody would cast him as a priest. kinski is and once again and great and although he has only little screen time and and one scene and where he breaks up a fight and is probably the only good scene in this. one more interesting thing about this film is that the legendary director and king of sleaze joe damato did the cinematography. giù la testa. hombre is a cheap and crappy film and but nevertheless and it has some funny moments. being a spaghetti western enthusiast and i found it fun to watch and but if youre not and never mind this movie and or watch it only for the purpose of seeing kinski play a priest. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
that incredible. fidani (who he was also a spiritist) was one of the cheapest director of all the world. this movie stole the original title of leone duck you sucker. but tell the boring story of a pinkerton agent against the killer testa di ferro (the improbable gordon mitchell and a stuntman). all is poor and crazy in this pelicula filmed into the dear landscapes of lazio. the story is bad and crazy at the same time. fidani was not able and ingenuos at the same time. into the story happened some kind of crazy illogical things (like the discussion into the sheriff house and the demential appearance of butch cassidy . yes and really butch cassidy and who is portrayed like an idiot). terribles nuit americaine and absurd comportaments and illogic plot and bad acting and a fugace appearance by one of the most rewarded anchorman in the story of italian television and renzo arbore. ah and of course represent klaus kinski. yes is great and terrible and but i am sure he was in it only for money an for playing with iron horses) negative but. dont miss it.
that incredible. fidani (who he was also a spiritist) was one of the cheapest director of all the world. this movie stole the original title of leone duck you sucker. but tell the boring story of a pinkerton agent against the killer testa di ferro (the improbable gordon mitchell and a stuntman). all is poor and crazy in this pelicula filmed into the dear landscapes of lazio. the story is bad and crazy at the same time. fidani was not able and ingenuos at the same time. into the story happened some kind of crazy illogical things (like the discussion into the sheriff house and the demential appearance of butch cassidy . yes and really butch cassidy and who is portrayed like an idiot). terribles nuit americaine and absurd comportaments and illogic plot and bad acting and a fugace appearance by one of the most rewarded anchorman in the story of italian television and renzo arbore. ah and of course represent klaus kinski. yes is great and terrible and but i am sure he was in it only for money an for playing with iron horses) negative but. dont miss it.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the ballad of django is a meandering mess of a movie. this spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better. ) films supposedly tied together by django telling how he brought in different outlaws. hunt powers (john cameron) brings nothing to the role of django. skip this one unless you just have to have every django movie made and even that may not be a good enough excuse to see this one.
the ballad of django is a meandering mess of a movie. this spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better. ) films supposedly tied together by django telling how he brought in different outlaws. hunt powers (john cameron) brings nothing to the role of django. skip this one unless you just have to have every django movie made and even that may not be a good enough excuse to see this one.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the only remarkable fact is the participation of klaus kinski who plays a priest. don not ask me why he does it. a bad and bad movie overall.
the only remarkable fact is the participation of klaus kinski who plays a priest. don not ask me why he does it. a bad and bad movie overall.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
oh and this is so bad and it is funny. the only way one could explain something like this is a porn party with drugs that resulted in the resolution to make a movie just for fun. i mean represent you get to see porn actresses topless and having sex and then killed by human mutants. there is plenty of gore and including the classic something is wrong with her and oh no and it half the person she used to be and the accidental murder caused by panic. but you can also find funny stuff like intestines pulled through someone ass and a guy running in the woods then finding himself decapitated by a wire tied between two trees (that makes a metallic doiiing sound afterward and like in cartoons). somehow there is a market for people going beyond porn and they really need to know what inside an actress and mere genitals are not enough. therefore you get to see plenty of summary autopsies on slain bimbos. there is no dialog. jenna and chasey have really small parts and i really wonder what richard grieco wanted when accepting a role here. i think this is a film one must watch with the button on fast forward and watch only the juicy stuff and just to be reminded of the old school c class horror movies.
oh and this is so bad and it is funny. the only way one could explain something like this is a porn party with drugs that resulted in the resolution to make a movie just for fun. i mean represent you get to see porn actresses topless and having sex and then killed by human mutants. there is plenty of gore and including the classic something is wrong with her and oh no and it half the person she used to be and the accidental murder caused by panic. but you can also find funny stuff like intestines pulled through someone ass and a guy running in the woods then finding himself decapitated by a wire tied between two trees (that makes a metallic doiiing sound afterward and like in cartoons). somehow there is a market for people going beyond porn and they really need to know what inside an actress and mere genitals are not enough. therefore you get to see plenty of summary autopsies on slain bimbos. there is no dialog. jenna and chasey have really small parts and i really wonder what richard grieco wanted when accepting a role here. i think this is a film one must watch with the button on fast forward and watch only the juicy stuff and just to be reminded of the old school c class horror movies.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
tourists head to ireland for a school trip to learn about druids. what they encounter is a horrific tale of cannibalistic killers. if i had to sum up evil breed and it would be a low grade gore fest. the film mixes dead alive and evil dead and wrong turn all in one. it just too bad that the film has so many inconsistencies to keep track of that it loses any fun one would have watching it. the film has lots of random horror nudity. although the film also stars four porn stars and yup four and so there could have been plenty more. breed also showcases a good amount of gore. evil breed has a horrible start and with laughable dialogue and horrible acting. that a given in a straight to video horror film and but this takes the cake. i can not really figure out who the main character is and since the one female who lives at the end is not really in the movie all that much. speaking of the ending and that has to be one of the most random and bogus ending in the history of film. it has no purpose with the rest of the film and totally changes one view of the film. you have to see this film to believe it and since there are some pretty great death scenes. there are two death scenes that come into my mind and one in which the inbred killer rips the intestines out of a naked woman through her chest. yea her chest and do not ask me. the other id when the guy gets his intestines and yet again and ripped out through his asshole. does that kill the guy. no and the killer continues to strangle the guy with his own intestines. these scenes remind me so much of dead alive and with the right amount of humour in each. i also got the sense of evil dead and with the pointless mentions of horror films and sam raimi. along with halloween and when the female character is in a closet screaming for her life with the killer trying desperately while y to get in. although and the gore and nudity are not enough for the poor audio and visual quality of the film. when the teacher wakes up from her bed and walks down the stairs and her footsteps are so loud and hard that it seems like she was wearing boots. distracting indeed. as well as the continuity in the film and with only one inbred killer. as well as which character dies at which moment. i couldn not tell if the breast implant chick was jenny or gary sister or cousin. i can not remember. as well as the random naked chick with a dead baby hanging out of her body and still attached with the umbilical cord. the horrible editing is distracting as well and the opening credits are too fast and disorienting. it did have a bad start and got better and but the ending just brings the film back down to a horrible level. if maybe there were better production values and more faith put into this film and then it do not have been horribly butchered to death. stay away from this film and unless you are happy with the below budget horrible bad film with decent gore.
tourists head to ireland for a school trip to learn about druids. what they encounter is a horrific tale of cannibalistic killers. if i had to sum up evil breed and it would be a low grade gore fest. the film mixes dead alive and evil dead and wrong turn all in one. it just too bad that the film has so many inconsistencies to keep track of that it loses any fun one would have watching it. the film has lots of random horror nudity. although the film also stars four porn stars and yup four and so there could have been plenty more. breed also showcases a good amount of gore. evil breed has a horrible start and with laughable dialogue and horrible acting. that a given in a straight to video horror film and but this takes the cake. i can not really figure out who the main character is and since the one female who lives at the end is not really in the movie all that much. speaking of the ending and that has to be one of the most random and bogus ending in the history of film. it has no purpose with the rest of the film and totally changes one view of the film. you have to see this film to believe it and since there are some pretty great death scenes. there are two death scenes that come into my mind and one in which the inbred killer rips the intestines out of a naked woman through her chest. yea her chest and do not ask me. the other id when the guy gets his intestines and yet again and ripped out through his asshole. does that kill the guy. no and the killer continues to strangle the guy with his own intestines. these scenes remind me so much of dead alive and with the right amount of humour in each. i also got the sense of evil dead and with the pointless mentions of horror films and sam raimi. along with halloween and when the female character is in a closet screaming for her life with the killer trying desperately while y to get in. although and the gore and nudity are not enough for the poor audio and visual quality of the film. when the teacher wakes up from her bed and walks down the stairs and her footsteps are so loud and hard that it seems like she was wearing boots. distracting indeed. as well as the continuity in the film and with only one inbred killer. as well as which character dies at which moment. i couldn not tell if the breast implant chick was jenny or gary sister or cousin. i can not remember. as well as the random naked chick with a dead baby hanging out of her body and still attached with the umbilical cord. the horrible editing is distracting as well and the opening credits are too fast and disorienting. it did have a bad start and got better and but the ending just brings the film back down to a horrible level. if maybe there were better production values and more faith put into this film and then it do not have been horribly butchered to death. stay away from this film and unless you are happy with the below budget horrible bad film with decent gore.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
justifications for what happened to his movie in terms of distributors and secondary directors and drunks and receptionists doing script rewrites aside and let just take this movie as it offered and without extraneous explanations. this movie is god awful. straight up craptastic. rather than rehash what may serve as a plot and i will run a highlight reel of some curious points that made me scratch my head. a class (of 5) take a field trip for a history class to the middle of friggin nowhere ireland. these students may be canadian or american and it difficult to tell. that it was filmed in a canadian forest rather than ireland is rather obvious as well. one student seems to know nothing about history and is basically the dumb jock character from a number of kick ass 80 movie and except when he channels randy from scream. one character may be chris klein stunt double. he has a girlfriend who probably gets killed and but it never really established if that is true. one character is sullen and removed from her peers. just. cuz. and then there a blonde girl. yay blonde girl. ireland has a population of 2. theyre cousins. gary and who is clearly the same age or younger than the rest of the cast and is called sir more than once. he very ominous and wears a knit cap. his cousin is a roughed up porn star with the worst irish accent to befoul film in my lifetime and most likely beyond. picturesque ireland features many canadian forests and swampy areas and 2 ducks which appear more than once in cut scenes. the producers got a discount on volume fake entrails. good for them. unbeknownst to me and horribly inbred freaks have access to brand spanking new hunting knives. perhaps there some kind of outdoorsman outlet nearby with a blind and deaf clerk working the register. also unbeknownst to me and if you inbreed for roughly 600 years and as the story leads us to believe happened and you end up being somewhat lumpy and yet amazingly spry and fairly strong. genetics are a wonderful game of craps. there may or may not be more than one freak in this film. reference is made to them and we see shadows and yet only one odd looking dude is seen ever. and when one odd looking dude is finally killed and apparently all danger is passed. i am running with my initial assumption that no one thought to outfit a second man in full make up and thus they just used the one. that what it looks like on screen and anyway. richard grieco should be ashamed. also of note and aside from those shiny new knives and the inbred freaks have access to some posh leather gear and as once richard grieco cuts his bonds and there are fresh ones ready for the next sucker who gets tied up. who also then escapes and because the chains give you enough slack to just undo them and making one wonder why they even bother tying anyone up. a dead body in a shack will be maggot ridden after what i would guess is about 2 hours has passed. said dead body will also have glasses on and when no characters wore them. curious. jenna jameson appears for no reason from stage left and chats for 2 minutes and vanishes stage left. in the middle of a giant forest. that not unusual and as gary can also pop out of nowhere and which is also known as whatever exists in tv land off the screen. ms. jameson dies sadly and somehow her clothes vanish like my hopes that this movie do not suck wind. i offer a special nod to the breeder character and the poor girl who has been used by the freaks for months (or maybe years) for breeding purposes. the poor girl who still has eye shadow on and emotes on camera with all the passion and conviction of a stuffed chihuahua. the ending of this movie was clearly tacked on by a drunk or someone with a fierce mental disability that has been cultivated and encouraged with excessive gasoline drinking over the years. apparently this wasn not just random crap i found on the movie network late at night and apparently people have heard of and even followed this movie through it production. how sad for you all. i have nothing more to say. may god have mercy on us all.
justifications for what happened to his movie in terms of distributors and secondary directors and drunks and receptionists doing script rewrites aside and let just take this movie as it offered and without extraneous explanations. this movie is god awful. straight up craptastic. rather than rehash what may serve as a plot and i will run a highlight reel of some curious points that made me scratch my head. a class (of 5) take a field trip for a history class to the middle of friggin nowhere ireland. these students may be canadian or american and it difficult to tell. that it was filmed in a canadian forest rather than ireland is rather obvious as well. one student seems to know nothing about history and is basically the dumb jock character from a number of kick ass 80 movie and except when he channels randy from scream. one character may be chris klein stunt double. he has a girlfriend who probably gets killed and but it never really established if that is true. one character is sullen and removed from her peers. just. cuz. and then there a blonde girl. yay blonde girl. ireland has a population of 2. theyre cousins. gary and who is clearly the same age or younger than the rest of the cast and is called sir more than once. he very ominous and wears a knit cap. his cousin is a roughed up porn star with the worst irish accent to befoul film in my lifetime and most likely beyond. picturesque ireland features many canadian forests and swampy areas and 2 ducks which appear more than once in cut scenes. the producers got a discount on volume fake entrails. good for them. unbeknownst to me and horribly inbred freaks have access to brand spanking new hunting knives. perhaps there some kind of outdoorsman outlet nearby with a blind and deaf clerk working the register. also unbeknownst to me and if you inbreed for roughly 600 years and as the story leads us to believe happened and you end up being somewhat lumpy and yet amazingly spry and fairly strong. genetics are a wonderful game of craps. there may or may not be more than one freak in this film. reference is made to them and we see shadows and yet only one odd looking dude is seen ever. and when one odd looking dude is finally killed and apparently all danger is passed. i am running with my initial assumption that no one thought to outfit a second man in full make up and thus they just used the one. that what it looks like on screen and anyway. richard grieco should be ashamed. also of note and aside from those shiny new knives and the inbred freaks have access to some posh leather gear and as once richard grieco cuts his bonds and there are fresh ones ready for the next sucker who gets tied up. who also then escapes and because the chains give you enough slack to just undo them and making one wonder why they even bother tying anyone up. a dead body in a shack will be maggot ridden after what i would guess is about 2 hours has passed. said dead body will also have glasses on and when no characters wore them. curious. jenna jameson appears for no reason from stage left and chats for 2 minutes and vanishes stage left. in the middle of a giant forest. that not unusual and as gary can also pop out of nowhere and which is also known as whatever exists in tv land off the screen. ms. jameson dies sadly and somehow her clothes vanish like my hopes that this movie do not suck wind. i offer a special nod to the breeder character and the poor girl who has been used by the freaks for months (or maybe years) for breeding purposes. the poor girl who still has eye shadow on and emotes on camera with all the passion and conviction of a stuffed chihuahua. the ending of this movie was clearly tacked on by a drunk or someone with a fierce mental disability that has been cultivated and encouraged with excessive gasoline drinking over the years. apparently this wasn not just random crap i found on the movie network late at night and apparently people have heard of and even followed this movie through it production. how sad for you all. i have nothing more to say. may god have mercy on us all.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
understand i am reviewing the film i have seen. i realize virtually all the nudity and gore was cut from this film and thus neutering it completely. when seeing names like ginger lynn and jenna jameson attached and i knew i wasn not going to get a horror classic and but at the very least i expected gratuitous boobies and bloodshed. but no and this has got to be the most butchered modern horror film and i mean it easy to tell there is much more to certain scenes and but they suddenly cut away and or the scene just totally ends right as it begins. how does one screw up cannibals and porn stars. i mean thats a winning formula and it makes me wonder if the director slept with some executive wife or something and because it is literally amazing how much got cut from this. reading about it a few years back in fangoria and i was excited and it looked like a fun film and but unfortunately the true film is locked in a vault somewhere and and we must endure this piece of excrement retitled evil breed. hopefully an unrated cut will be released someday and as i think a good movie exists in this mess and but until then best grab a twelve pack of bud and cause thats the only way you will make it through this movie.
understand i am reviewing the film i have seen. i realize virtually all the nudity and gore was cut from this film and thus neutering it completely. when seeing names like ginger lynn and jenna jameson attached and i knew i wasn not going to get a horror classic and but at the very least i expected gratuitous boobies and bloodshed. but no and this has got to be the most butchered modern horror film and i mean it easy to tell there is much more to certain scenes and but they suddenly cut away and or the scene just totally ends right as it begins. how does one screw up cannibals and porn stars. i mean thats a winning formula and it makes me wonder if the director slept with some executive wife or something and because it is literally amazing how much got cut from this. reading about it a few years back in fangoria and i was excited and it looked like a fun film and but unfortunately the true film is locked in a vault somewhere and and we must endure this piece of excrement retitled evil breed. hopefully an unrated cut will be released someday and as i think a good movie exists in this mess and but until then best grab a twelve pack of bud and cause thats the only way you will make it through this movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
evil breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good. the beginning of the film seems promising but overall it a disaster. the dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting. the acting is brutal and unbearable. most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn not work because the characters become annoying. some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them. after about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes. the movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters and unrealistic karate like fights and and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his asscrack. none of it is funny it just plain ridiculous. the film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless. most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days. evil breed isn not even laughably bad therefore it fails in it main task. watch texas chainsaw massacre and just before dawn and or see no evil for a real slasher.
evil breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good. the beginning of the film seems promising but overall it a disaster. the dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting. the acting is brutal and unbearable. most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn not work because the characters become annoying. some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them. after about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes. the movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters and unrealistic karate like fights and and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his asscrack. none of it is funny it just plain ridiculous. the film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless. most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days. evil breed isn not even laughably bad therefore it fails in it main task. watch texas chainsaw massacre and just before dawn and or see no evil for a real slasher.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have been watching horror movies since i was 5 years old and beginning with childs play. since then and i have seen good horror movies and bad and but this is without question and the dumbest movie i have ever seen. the actors did all they could with the material. the plot was just idiotic. plus and it was just all gore. i can stomach a lot of blood and but that was just ridiculous. in one of the scenes and a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines. plain stupid. another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. the end of it is just dumb. but then again and it goes with the rest of it. at the end and when the girl gets away from the cannibal or ancestor and she receives help from a old lady. the old lady is making tea and but when she turns around to talk to the girl and the girl attacks her. she turned into a cannibal. retarded movie.
i have been watching horror movies since i was 5 years old and beginning with childs play. since then and i have seen good horror movies and bad and but this is without question and the dumbest movie i have ever seen. the actors did all they could with the material. the plot was just idiotic. plus and it was just all gore. i can stomach a lot of blood and but that was just ridiculous. in one of the scenes and a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines. plain stupid. another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. the end of it is just dumb. but then again and it goes with the rest of it. at the end and when the girl gets away from the cannibal or ancestor and she receives help from a old lady. the old lady is making tea and but when she turns around to talk to the girl and the girl attacks her. she turned into a cannibal. retarded movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
yes and definitely better than my viewing of death tunnel. actually some of the deaths were pretty original and the gore was decent. it was kind of like wrong turn meets the hills have eyes. but represent 1. ) when the kids (high school or college. ) are discussing horror movies in the kitchen and everything shae says is almost an exact quote from scream (1996). the thing about the big breasted girls etc. 2. ) was steve not a bootleg randy from scream. 3. ) besides the fact that it took place in october and what the hell did the movie have to do with samhain. pretty unnecessary if you ask me. i find it humorous when i see those horror movies from the 80 that explain away loose ends by pointing the fingers at the druids or a pentagram. 4. ) wow they made a sam raimi reference. 5. ) why was gary and his sister in the movie. theyre characters had nothing to do with anything. and hes so psychic that he couldn not even see his own death. 6. ) when gary was being killed in the bathroom (at that point and the deaths became simply troma licious) how could she hear the screams when she was downstairs but not hear them when she was standing outside the door. 7. ) gary sister commented on haggis thats primarily a scottish dish and not irish. 8. ) so the lesson is if you are like shae and do not have any fun or crack a smile through the whole film and you will be the one to live. 9. ) the mutants were pretty cool and but they looked like walking dishes of chili con carne. 10. ) when they brought in gary sister and did they forget that steve had been strapped there and wonder where he went. 11. ) was there not more than one killer. shae beat that one and but never encountered any more of them. 12. ) what was with the flashbacks to those other people. half of them shae do not know if they were dead or alive and so what was with that. 13. ) why do not they kill gary and his sister before. 14. ) why did no one ever call the police. and apparently everybody knew those people lived in the woods and why did they never organize some kind of raid. 15. )as far as i know and they were not zombies or vampires so how could she turn into one at the end. i am with everyone else on the giant huh. at the end. way better than death tunnel and but still quite sloppy. i still do not understand why they even placed it in ireland and considering samhain had close to nothing to do with the plot.
yes and definitely better than my viewing of death tunnel. actually some of the deaths were pretty original and the gore was decent. it was kind of like wrong turn meets the hills have eyes. but represent 1. ) when the kids (high school or college. ) are discussing horror movies in the kitchen and everything shae says is almost an exact quote from scream (1996). the thing about the big breasted girls etc. 2. ) was steve not a bootleg randy from scream. 3. ) besides the fact that it took place in october and what the hell did the movie have to do with samhain. pretty unnecessary if you ask me. i find it humorous when i see those horror movies from the 80 that explain away loose ends by pointing the fingers at the druids or a pentagram. 4. ) wow they made a sam raimi reference. 5. ) why was gary and his sister in the movie. theyre characters had nothing to do with anything. and hes so psychic that he couldn not even see his own death. 6. ) when gary was being killed in the bathroom (at that point and the deaths became simply troma licious) how could she hear the screams when she was downstairs but not hear them when she was standing outside the door. 7. ) gary sister commented on haggis thats primarily a scottish dish and not irish. 8. ) so the lesson is if you are like shae and do not have any fun or crack a smile through the whole film and you will be the one to live. 9. ) the mutants were pretty cool and but they looked like walking dishes of chili con carne. 10. ) when they brought in gary sister and did they forget that steve had been strapped there and wonder where he went. 11. ) was there not more than one killer. shae beat that one and but never encountered any more of them. 12. ) what was with the flashbacks to those other people. half of them shae do not know if they were dead or alive and so what was with that. 13. ) why do not they kill gary and his sister before. 14. ) why did no one ever call the police. and apparently everybody knew those people lived in the woods and why did they never organize some kind of raid. 15. )as far as i know and they were not zombies or vampires so how could she turn into one at the end. i am with everyone else on the giant huh. at the end. way better than death tunnel and but still quite sloppy. i still do not understand why they even placed it in ireland and considering samhain had close to nothing to do with the plot.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i really do not get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading leviticus. first of all and surely they could have 2 found real irish people and and some good looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up and haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. granted and the gore works but strangely and it not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain. so and if you do not care at all about the following represent acting (seriously and everyone sucked. i have never witnessed this before. everyone sucked). plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear and or at the very least surprising. this movie doesn not make sense unless youre as trashed as the writers obviously were). theme (nothing to learn from this film. nothing to be scared about in bed at night and nothing to contemplate or grasp and or explain to others). soundtrack (crap and crap and crap. music as ordinary and dull as the script). scenery (could have been this film saving grace and but no. nothing pleasing here. even the rocks are fake). so and yeah. if you do not care about that and and youre just a horny teen with bad taste in music and women and this movie is for you. positive comments represent interesting cinematography at times and wasted on the other elements. very realistic gore while again and wasted. but the intestines scene is classic. i agree with the mutant disembowelment solves the fake accent problem.
i really do not get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading leviticus. first of all and surely they could have 2 found real irish people and and some good looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up and haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. granted and the gore works but strangely and it not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain. so and if you do not care at all about the following represent acting (seriously and everyone sucked. i have never witnessed this before. everyone sucked). plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear and or at the very least surprising. this movie doesn not make sense unless youre as trashed as the writers obviously were). theme (nothing to learn from this film. nothing to be scared about in bed at night and nothing to contemplate or grasp and or explain to others). soundtrack (crap and crap and crap. music as ordinary and dull as the script). scenery (could have been this film saving grace and but no. nothing pleasing here. even the rocks are fake). so and yeah. if you do not care about that and and youre just a horny teen with bad taste in music and women and this movie is for you. positive comments represent interesting cinematography at times and wasted on the other elements. very realistic gore while again and wasted. but the intestines scene is classic. i agree with the mutant disembowelment solves the fake accent problem.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
rented a batch of films from blockbuster last night and and this was the first one i watched (it was late on a saturday night and wanted a horror film fix). wow and this was awful and almost embarrassingly so. stupid slasher type story i really thought films like scream had put an end to while amateur actors delivering clichéd and insipid dialogue that is hard to believe was actually typed and read off a page while and gore scenes that are nothing to get excited about (especially when occurring in a film this poorly scripted). but i have always believed no film is 100% percent totally worthless. here the few good things i can say about this mess represent #1 bobbie phillips represent love this actress. she the only member of the cast who displays any acting talent whatsoever. the only reason i took a chance on renting this is because her name was on the front cover. she acquits her presence in this dreck with professionalism and even though she looks bemused at times that she acting in such a moronic story. #2 unintentional hilarity represent this is the kind of film i can remember seeing back when there were still grind house theaters around the country and they used to include crap like this as the third movie on a triple bill with some prestige thriller movie that was finally making it way to the hinterlands. unfortunately and in this direct to video age and most viewers have to endure these turkeys alone now without the communal experience of being part of an audience jeering and throwing stuff at the screen because the film is so terrible. which leads to #3 porn stars trying to act. represent mostly on hand because the producers do not need to cajole or plead with them to disrobe for extended sex scenes and but this trade off usually means they actually get to speak some lines that are supposed to advance a story (other than ooh yeah baby and or harder. ). and and proudly and they all deliver expertly at looking foolish when trying to act. i would almost exclude ginger lynn allen from this group if her character wasn not supposed to be an irish mom and she actually attempting at times to do an accent and which just keeps the smiles coming. it nice to look for the positive in all experiences and and that what i took from this cesspool a. k. a evil breed.
rented a batch of films from blockbuster last night and and this was the first one i watched (it was late on a saturday night and wanted a horror film fix). wow and this was awful and almost embarrassingly so. stupid slasher type story i really thought films like scream had put an end to while amateur actors delivering clichéd and insipid dialogue that is hard to believe was actually typed and read off a page while and gore scenes that are nothing to get excited about (especially when occurring in a film this poorly scripted). but i have always believed no film is 100% percent totally worthless. here the few good things i can say about this mess represent #1 bobbie phillips represent love this actress. she the only member of the cast who displays any acting talent whatsoever. the only reason i took a chance on renting this is because her name was on the front cover. she acquits her presence in this dreck with professionalism and even though she looks bemused at times that she acting in such a moronic story. #2 unintentional hilarity represent this is the kind of film i can remember seeing back when there were still grind house theaters around the country and they used to include crap like this as the third movie on a triple bill with some prestige thriller movie that was finally making it way to the hinterlands. unfortunately and in this direct to video age and most viewers have to endure these turkeys alone now without the communal experience of being part of an audience jeering and throwing stuff at the screen because the film is so terrible. which leads to #3 porn stars trying to act. represent mostly on hand because the producers do not need to cajole or plead with them to disrobe for extended sex scenes and but this trade off usually means they actually get to speak some lines that are supposed to advance a story (other than ooh yeah baby and or harder. ). and and proudly and they all deliver expertly at looking foolish when trying to act. i would almost exclude ginger lynn allen from this group if her character wasn not supposed to be an irish mom and she actually attempting at times to do an accent and which just keeps the smiles coming. it nice to look for the positive in all experiences and and that what i took from this cesspool a. k. a evil breed.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
karen(bobbie phillips)mentions and after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes and that she will never survive this trip. boy and is she ever on the money. karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the shepley college of historical studies to the butt ugly locale of a run down manor in the major dung heap of ireland. surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this. the caretaker of the manor and gary(simon peacock)warns karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. there a myth regarding the sawney bean clan and a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate samhain(the end of summer and october 31st)feast of the dead where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. gary is supposedly clairvoyant and his cousin pandora(ginger lynn allen)tells us and because he was born on samhain. funny and because he sure doesn not see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. nearly everyone dies(. even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn not even see his own gruesome fate. what this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding. it face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a mad max picture. it doesn not take long before the evil breeder is killing everyone. paul(howard rosenstein)is karen love interest who made the wrong decision coming to ireland without his girlfriend prior knowledge. horrible formula slasher doesn not stray from the norm. it minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder acts of death towards his victims. lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. seeing gillian leigh gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn not incentive enough to recommend it. phil price has the really irritating trickster character and steve and often shedding bad jokes. how he is able to get leigh barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone guess because i have no reason why he would stand a chance with such a hottie. brandi ann milbrant has the fortunate role of shae and the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. jenna jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she looking for. the film main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it realized that none of them are at all interesting so director christian viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage and obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. oh and and richard grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick.
karen(bobbie phillips)mentions and after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes and that she will never survive this trip. boy and is she ever on the money. karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the shepley college of historical studies to the butt ugly locale of a run down manor in the major dung heap of ireland. surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this. the caretaker of the manor and gary(simon peacock)warns karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. there a myth regarding the sawney bean clan and a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate samhain(the end of summer and october 31st)feast of the dead where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. gary is supposedly clairvoyant and his cousin pandora(ginger lynn allen)tells us and because he was born on samhain. funny and because he sure doesn not see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. nearly everyone dies(. even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn not even see his own gruesome fate. what this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding. it face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a mad max picture. it doesn not take long before the evil breeder is killing everyone. paul(howard rosenstein)is karen love interest who made the wrong decision coming to ireland without his girlfriend prior knowledge. horrible formula slasher doesn not stray from the norm. it minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder acts of death towards his victims. lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. seeing gillian leigh gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn not incentive enough to recommend it. phil price has the really irritating trickster character and steve and often shedding bad jokes. how he is able to get leigh barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone guess because i have no reason why he would stand a chance with such a hottie. brandi ann milbrant has the fortunate role of shae and the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. jenna jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she looking for. the film main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it realized that none of them are at all interesting so director christian viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage and obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. oh and and richard grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
first of all and jenna jameson is the best actress in this movie and and she just awful. this movie has every horror move cliché in imagination and and all badly played. the over sexed teen couple. the comical(not)horny jock. the snotty cool chick. the creepy local color guy. the parental type couple. the virginal chick who amazingly never dies in these films. the dialogue is so painfully awful and delivered with the depth of a wading pool. it almost like youre wishing that they would all die sooner. i saw the rough cut of this film a while ago and but somehow and this just got worse. sure and the funniest thing in here is the ghoul trying to eat jameson implants and but that hardly rates even a rental of this dog. avoid at all costs.
first of all and jenna jameson is the best actress in this movie and and she just awful. this movie has every horror move cliché in imagination and and all badly played. the over sexed teen couple. the comical(not)horny jock. the snotty cool chick. the creepy local color guy. the parental type couple. the virginal chick who amazingly never dies in these films. the dialogue is so painfully awful and delivered with the depth of a wading pool. it almost like youre wishing that they would all die sooner. i saw the rough cut of this film a while ago and but somehow and this just got worse. sure and the funniest thing in here is the ghoul trying to eat jameson implants and but that hardly rates even a rental of this dog. avoid at all costs.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this started bad and got worse and and by the time the girl attacked the old lady at the end i literally wanted to take the dvd to the person we borrowed it off and choke the ct to death with it. avoid this film and a little bit of good cinematography and some naked shots and would be almost acceptable if i was 14 and had not seen jenna jameson naked a million times. if anyone feels the need to watch this film and i would strongly recommend you spend the time more appropriately and as an example i would say trying to cram a lego house into your bum with no lube would be a good start. i hear that this film was not the original version and i would very much like to view the original and as it seems that this cut version is devoid of all plot and and apparently most of the nudity and can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with christian viel he owes me an hour of my life back.
this started bad and got worse and and by the time the girl attacked the old lady at the end i literally wanted to take the dvd to the person we borrowed it off and choke the ct to death with it. avoid this film and a little bit of good cinematography and some naked shots and would be almost acceptable if i was 14 and had not seen jenna jameson naked a million times. if anyone feels the need to watch this film and i would strongly recommend you spend the time more appropriately and as an example i would say trying to cram a lego house into your bum with no lube would be a good start. i hear that this film was not the original version and i would very much like to view the original and as it seems that this cut version is devoid of all plot and and apparently most of the nudity and can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with christian viel he owes me an hour of my life back.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i had to register for imdb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is. my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. not the worst acting i have ever seen and but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes and it leaves a bit to be desired. there wasn not a single care moment in the movie and with the exception of when they were watching the movie halloween on the tv. all around and it seems like it could have been a good story and rolling the credits and saying that chasey lain was in it was a bit of a loss as i do not recognize her right away and her scene was already over before i could have said oh yeah and there she is. i am so glad i saw this in a hotel and do not pay for it as i would be real ticked if i had payed a cent to see this. i normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie and but this one is an exception. it so bad that it not even that amusing so good it bad. it just plain bad.
i had to register for imdb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is. my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. not the worst acting i have ever seen and but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes and it leaves a bit to be desired. there wasn not a single care moment in the movie and with the exception of when they were watching the movie halloween on the tv. all around and it seems like it could have been a good story and rolling the credits and saying that chasey lain was in it was a bit of a loss as i do not recognize her right away and her scene was already over before i could have said oh yeah and there she is. i am so glad i saw this in a hotel and do not pay for it as i would be real ticked if i had payed a cent to see this. i normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie and but this one is an exception. it so bad that it not even that amusing so good it bad. it just plain bad.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
thanks to this film and i now can answer the question and what is the worst movie you have ever seen. i can not even think of a close second and and i have seen some really bad movies. absolutely nothing works in this film. name a single element of any horror film and this movie fails. honestly and i have seen better on youtube. here some typical dialogue representsteve. steve. steve and is that you. steve and i am not kidding steve and this isn not funny. steve and are you there. steve. steve. steve. arggh. ahhhhhh. nooooooo.
thanks to this film and i now can answer the question and what is the worst movie you have ever seen. i can not even think of a close second and and i have seen some really bad movies. absolutely nothing works in this film. name a single element of any horror film and this movie fails. honestly and i have seen better on youtube. here some typical dialogue representsteve. steve. steve and is that you. steve and i am not kidding steve and this isn not funny. steve and are you there. steve. steve. steve. arggh. ahhhhhh. nooooooo.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
four porn stars romping through the irish woods sounds like a film to watch. we have ginger lynn allen and chasey lain and taylor hayes and and jenna jameson all together in one film. are you licking your lips. well the mutant creatures who resulted from centuries of inbreeding were certainly licking their lips as they feasted on the entrails of their victims. yes and there was some flesh exposed far too little considering the cast but and it was soon ripped open to expose dinner for these creatures. there was definitely some action that probably has not been seen before and and more than one person lost their head in the situation. unfortunately and director christian viel did not show much promise and i am not likely to watch his later efforts.
four porn stars romping through the irish woods sounds like a film to watch. we have ginger lynn allen and chasey lain and taylor hayes and and jenna jameson all together in one film. are you licking your lips. well the mutant creatures who resulted from centuries of inbreeding were certainly licking their lips as they feasted on the entrails of their victims. yes and there was some flesh exposed far too little considering the cast but and it was soon ripped open to expose dinner for these creatures. there was definitely some action that probably has not been seen before and and more than one person lost their head in the situation. unfortunately and director christian viel did not show much promise and i am not likely to watch his later efforts.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
for your own good and it would be best to disregard any positive reviews concerning this movie. this flick stinks. now and i like (at least in theory) low budget horror movies and but this one makes the worst mistake a low budget flick can make represent it takes itself way too seriously. and and unfortunately and that not it only problem. it the story of the murderous beane clan of the british ilses transposed to modern times. an interesting premise and but there are two things that are immediately perplexing about this film once you start watching it. #1 why is the biggest name on the cd box jenna jameson. she a below average looking woman who can not act and and she has a minor role. answer represent she apparently a well known porn star (as you no doubt read in other reviews) and so i guess this is a cameo appearance for her. she giving the film much needed name recognition and it seems. her top billing isn not any indication of her talent and though and it an indication of how untalented the rest of the cast is. #2 how can film makers be so stupid to think canada can be passed off as ireland. it doesn not even remotely look like ireland. and the house that the guests or victims stay in is this great big north american wood frame edwardian thing. they should have skipped the whole beane theme and developed a story that took place in n. a. also and if youre going to make a movie that takes place in ireland and it probably best to have more than one character with an irish accent (and that was a really really really bad irish accent. ) now and this do not have been so bad if the director wasn not trying to make the next night of the living dead and but it seems he was. too bad. he could have had some fun with it. in fact and some of the scenes weren not far from being unintentionally comedic as they were. like the infamous gutting scene and were the woman is chained to the table and stripped naked and and then sliced open and eviscerated. that funny and you ask. well and in the deleted scene version and the mutant killer pulls out mile after mile after mile of intestines. it actually funny after awhile. and what self respecting cannibal eats intestines and anyway. do we eat the intestines of cows and chickens. heck no and we eat hams and ribs and drumsticks. oh well. some of the other cast who were annoying represent the whiny and creepy howard rosenstein. i am not sure and but i think he was supposed to be cast as a stud. in fact and he as big a loser and goof ball as his name would imply. which would explain why the character played by the equally annoying gillian leigh fell for him. i checked gillian leigh on her link on imdb and and apparently it important to know that she graduated high school with honors. i can not decide if it more amusing or pathetic to know that only a couple years after graduation and the honor student is doing nude soft core porn scenes in a shower with a guy named howard rosenstein. wonder if her former classmates have seen this movie. if they have and hopefully they will get the message represent avoid this fate. go to college. i could go on and on and but why. if you like gore and you will find something redeeming in this flick and but not much more.
for your own good and it would be best to disregard any positive reviews concerning this movie. this flick stinks. now and i like (at least in theory) low budget horror movies and but this one makes the worst mistake a low budget flick can make represent it takes itself way too seriously. and and unfortunately and that not it only problem. it the story of the murderous beane clan of the british ilses transposed to modern times. an interesting premise and but there are two things that are immediately perplexing about this film once you start watching it. #1 why is the biggest name on the cd box jenna jameson. she a below average looking woman who can not act and and she has a minor role. answer represent she apparently a well known porn star (as you no doubt read in other reviews) and so i guess this is a cameo appearance for her. she giving the film much needed name recognition and it seems. her top billing isn not any indication of her talent and though and it an indication of how untalented the rest of the cast is. #2 how can film makers be so stupid to think canada can be passed off as ireland. it doesn not even remotely look like ireland. and the house that the guests or victims stay in is this great big north american wood frame edwardian thing. they should have skipped the whole beane theme and developed a story that took place in n. a. also and if youre going to make a movie that takes place in ireland and it probably best to have more than one character with an irish accent (and that was a really really really bad irish accent. ) now and this do not have been so bad if the director wasn not trying to make the next night of the living dead and but it seems he was. too bad. he could have had some fun with it. in fact and some of the scenes weren not far from being unintentionally comedic as they were. like the infamous gutting scene and were the woman is chained to the table and stripped naked and and then sliced open and eviscerated. that funny and you ask. well and in the deleted scene version and the mutant killer pulls out mile after mile after mile of intestines. it actually funny after awhile. and what self respecting cannibal eats intestines and anyway. do we eat the intestines of cows and chickens. heck no and we eat hams and ribs and drumsticks. oh well. some of the other cast who were annoying represent the whiny and creepy howard rosenstein. i am not sure and but i think he was supposed to be cast as a stud. in fact and he as big a loser and goof ball as his name would imply. which would explain why the character played by the equally annoying gillian leigh fell for him. i checked gillian leigh on her link on imdb and and apparently it important to know that she graduated high school with honors. i can not decide if it more amusing or pathetic to know that only a couple years after graduation and the honor student is doing nude soft core porn scenes in a shower with a guy named howard rosenstein. wonder if her former classmates have seen this movie. if they have and hopefully they will get the message represent avoid this fate. go to college. i could go on and on and but why. if you like gore and you will find something redeeming in this flick and but not much more.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
please do not rent or even think about buying this movie. they do not even have it available at the red box to rent which would cost a $1 and i think its worth less than that. the main reason why i rented this d movie was because jenna jameson is in the movie lol between 2 5 min. i will give credit that the movie had hot chicks and quite a bit of nudity but other than that you might as well buy another d horror movie that has the same thing with nobody you know. ginger lynn has more acting time in this movie than jenna and she not even on the front cover of the movie nor her name. i recommend people to watch zombie strippers because you see jenna almost throughout the whole movie and nude most of the time. this movie is a big disappointment and such a huge waste of time.
please do not rent or even think about buying this movie. they do not even have it available at the red box to rent which would cost a $1 and i think its worth less than that. the main reason why i rented this d movie was because jenna jameson is in the movie lol between 2 5 min. i will give credit that the movie had hot chicks and quite a bit of nudity but other than that you might as well buy another d horror movie that has the same thing with nobody you know. ginger lynn has more acting time in this movie than jenna and she not even on the front cover of the movie nor her name. i recommend people to watch zombie strippers because you see jenna almost throughout the whole movie and nude most of the time. this movie is a big disappointment and such a huge waste of time.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. a group of tourists and supposedly on vacation in ireland but actually in canada and run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other and and the plot is more or less right out of the hill have eyes ands wrong turn. only problem is and unless i miscounted and there only one mutant on display and and he isn not all that impressive. sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. some gory but silly deaths help and but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. the ending is predictable and has been done to death. no pun intended.
i only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. a group of tourists and supposedly on vacation in ireland but actually in canada and run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other and and the plot is more or less right out of the hill have eyes ands wrong turn. only problem is and unless i miscounted and there only one mutant on display and and he isn not all that impressive. sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. some gory but silly deaths help and but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. the ending is predictable and has been done to death. no pun intended.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
make a 0 you sacks of german staples. well and when i started to watch this sack of crud and it was a sunday afternoon and and i was just looking for stuff on show time. i was introduced to a hot naked babe and and like any guy (im a guy and the e mail is my sisters. ) i was happy. but then they threw it all to the dogs and spit on it and lit it on fire and and peed it out. you wanna know how. the dumb chick talked. the dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. the violence was nice for some scenes and but some was just totally moronic. the scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife. dumb moron. to sum it up and this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity and and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.
make a 0 you sacks of german staples. well and when i started to watch this sack of crud and it was a sunday afternoon and and i was just looking for stuff on show time. i was introduced to a hot naked babe and and like any guy (im a guy and the e mail is my sisters. ) i was happy. but then they threw it all to the dogs and spit on it and lit it on fire and and peed it out. you wanna know how. the dumb chick talked. the dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. the violence was nice for some scenes and but some was just totally moronic. the scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife. dumb moron. to sum it up and this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity and and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
did they use their entire budget paying the porno stars or what. sound effects and background music and the editing in general was so bad you would think some 12 year old wanna be made the film. most of the acting was good considering the script. the innocent virgin played her part really well. the mutants look really cool and this actually could have been a really cool flick with the right brain behind the wheel. but and unfortunately for all involved and that not the case. turn left was made better than this movie and those guys do not even have any money. good thing i do not rent the movie myself.
did they use their entire budget paying the porno stars or what. sound effects and background music and the editing in general was so bad you would think some 12 year old wanna be made the film. most of the acting was good considering the script. the innocent virgin played her part really well. the mutants look really cool and this actually could have been a really cool flick with the right brain behind the wheel. but and unfortunately for all involved and that not the case. turn left was made better than this movie and those guys do not even have any money. good thing i do not rent the movie myself.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
he pulled the guys guts out his butt. that a spoof right. no one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. i think any way. this movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard. director says and next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. get this and he is going to pull the guts out his bungholebrilliant. the entire cast proclaims. no way can that happen and nobody writes that stupid. gotta be a spoof. i loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. i wasn not sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door. what the heck is that richard greco guy doing in this. did he fire his agent or something. can anyone explain the ending to me please because i do not get it either. i can not quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. never mind i do not want to know.
he pulled the guys guts out his butt. that a spoof right. no one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. i think any way. this movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard. director says and next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. get this and he is going to pull the guts out his bungholebrilliant. the entire cast proclaims. no way can that happen and nobody writes that stupid. gotta be a spoof. i loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. i wasn not sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door. what the heck is that richard greco guy doing in this. did he fire his agent or something. can anyone explain the ending to me please because i do not get it either. i can not quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. never mind i do not want to know.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
it was the worst ending i have ever seen if some one can please tell me how and why the last chick goes crazy and eats the old women in the end. why dose the movie have all those cheap crappy scares in it in the beginning but yet when the first person dies they kill them all off in 5 minutes. most of the people could act but i do give so credit to the porn stars they did their best. also it had a couple funny parts and kills like when the care taker gets his organs riped out of his ass and then gets choked with it. if this movie had an ending that could make any since i would have given it a positive but the ending made no since. the ending sucked but the rest was great.
it was the worst ending i have ever seen if some one can please tell me how and why the last chick goes crazy and eats the old women in the end. why dose the movie have all those cheap crappy scares in it in the beginning but yet when the first person dies they kill them all off in 5 minutes. most of the people could act but i do give so credit to the porn stars they did their best. also it had a couple funny parts and kills like when the care taker gets his organs riped out of his ass and then gets choked with it. if this movie had an ending that could make any since i would have given it a positive but the ending made no since. the ending sucked but the rest was great.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film has its good points represent hot chicks people diethe problem. the hot chicks barley get nude and you do not get to see many of the people dieing and mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes. also for those of you watching this for jenna jameson she is just a side chearator with a very small role and minor nude scenes. what this film needed. script and story would be nice but i will not complain about that. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks. i do not waste my money on it. and if you must and wait until it on the old shelves at your local video store.
this film has its good points represent hot chicks people diethe problem. the hot chicks barley get nude and you do not get to see many of the people dieing and mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes. also for those of you watching this for jenna jameson she is just a side chearator with a very small role and minor nude scenes. what this film needed. script and story would be nice but i will not complain about that. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks. i do not waste my money on it. and if you must and wait until it on the old shelves at your local video store.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have seen dolemite and also (avenging) disco godfather and two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend rudy ray moore. but this film and the human tornado (aka dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. for sheer goofiness and lack of skill in film production and and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much) and the human tornado cannot be topped. the opening scene sets the tone. our old pal dolemite is shacking up with a white woman and when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason and and do not you know it. the woman in bed with ol dole is none other than the sheriff wife. her cry when she sees him represent he made me do it. dolemite cry represent and $@$ are you for real. subtlety was never his strong point. highlights. the cameo by a very young ernie hudson (of ghostbusters fame) and the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot and and another in the next and dolemite suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act) and and queen bee demonic eyes in her first scene. but the real joy here is rudy ray moore himself. did the man really think he looked cool in this movie. i certainly do not know why and but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff and or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e. g represent quick. into the cave. i have a plan to let that mother $@(% and dig his own grave. ) the man commits totally. certainly he goes overboard and nevermore so than any time he doing kung fu. the climactic battle is filmed at high speed and but occassionaly slows down to let rudy pose and grits his teeth. i am not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. in any event and the matrix it is not. human tornado and much like the original dolemite and is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. but at least it fun and and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. just not that much. enjoy with my hearty recommendations.
i have seen dolemite and also (avenging) disco godfather and two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend rudy ray moore. but this film and the human tornado (aka dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. for sheer goofiness and lack of skill in film production and and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much) and the human tornado cannot be topped. the opening scene sets the tone. our old pal dolemite is shacking up with a white woman and when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason and and do not you know it. the woman in bed with ol dole is none other than the sheriff wife. her cry when she sees him represent he made me do it. dolemite cry represent and $@$ are you for real. subtlety was never his strong point. highlights. the cameo by a very young ernie hudson (of ghostbusters fame) and the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot and and another in the next and dolemite suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act) and and queen bee demonic eyes in her first scene. but the real joy here is rudy ray moore himself. did the man really think he looked cool in this movie. i certainly do not know why and but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff and or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e. g represent quick. into the cave. i have a plan to let that mother $@(% and dig his own grave. ) the man commits totally. certainly he goes overboard and nevermore so than any time he doing kung fu. the climactic battle is filmed at high speed and but occassionaly slows down to let rudy pose and grits his teeth. i am not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. in any event and the matrix it is not. human tornado and much like the original dolemite and is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. but at least it fun and and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. just not that much. enjoy with my hearty recommendations.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this rather formulaic swords and flying fists movie is a decent early display of john woo talents. the cinematography is excellent and some of the sword work is truly remarkable. unfortunately the film labours under the burden of a dull story and a glaringly low budget (check some of the setbound fight scenes if you doubt me). nonetheless and it worth seeing and especially if you can catch in letterboxed.
this rather formulaic swords and flying fists movie is a decent early display of john woo talents. the cinematography is excellent and some of the sword work is truly remarkable. unfortunately the film labours under the burden of a dull story and a glaringly low budget (check some of the setbound fight scenes if you doubt me). nonetheless and it worth seeing and especially if you can catch in letterboxed.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
most of the episodes on season 1 are awful. there is no comparison to twilight zone or outer limits and as they programs actually had decent story lines. most of amazing stories are well dull. not amazing in the least. go rent or buy the twilight zone series. i have heard season 2 of this series is much better. also for some reason on the dvd they cut out the ray walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. the one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985. most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering.
most of the episodes on season 1 are awful. there is no comparison to twilight zone or outer limits and as they programs actually had decent story lines. most of amazing stories are well dull. not amazing in the least. go rent or buy the twilight zone series. i have heard season 2 of this series is much better. also for some reason on the dvd they cut out the ray walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. the one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985. most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
spoilers a bit ridicules made for tv movie has sexy and middle age gold digger isabelle collins and susan tucci and doing a number on every man she comes in contact with in the movie. first winning over their hearts then their wallets and then and when their no longer any use to her and thrown in the wastepaper basket like a used up kleenex tissue. isabelle first victim is non other then her abusive and on keeping isabelle from raiding his bank account and husband stewart and john ohurley. it later in the movie when isabelle gets very friendly with former plumber and now yacht salesman richard davis and philip casnoff and that she and without really telling him and has the totally love sick richard get a contract out on her unsuspecting husbands life. getting this ex convict and in fact as soon as he released from prison and daggett and nicholas campbell and to do the job on stewart richard soon finds out that he do not get exactly what he paid and $15 and 000. 00 in cash and for. getting a little too greedy daggett not only blew stewart brains out but took a solid gold watch and that stewart offered him in order to spear his life and as well. the watch was easily traced to daggett as he tried to pawn it at a local jewelry shop where he was quickly arrested. with doggett spilling his guts out on who hired him to whack stewart it doesn not take long for the long arm of the law to arrest stewart and by hiring doggett and killer isabelle husband to be ex plumber and yacht salesman richard davis. davis arrest by the police happens just as he and isabelle took the vows of matrimony in a local church. isabelle manipulates everyone and exclusively men that fall head over heels for her and to her advantage by getting them to do her dirty work. always playing the part of the naive housewife or widow or lover or even client isabelle seems to live a charmed life always one step ahead of the law and police. no matter what she does isabelle covers her pretty behind so well that it almost impossible to pin her down on any and in having others do them and of the many crimes that she commits and through a second party and in the film. after screwing and figuratively as well as literally and her first husband steven her second husband and for less then ten seconds and richard and finally her and or richard and attorney gavin kendrick and kamar de los rey and isabelle knows that it only a matter of time before the police get wise to her. with the d. a getting both richard and kendrick to turn evidence against her isabelle now knowing that everything is fast closing in on her makes her final move. getting everything in order and by transferring all her cash overseas and isabelle and her 10 year old daughter ruby and lauren collins and shoot down to the passport office in order to get clearance and passports and to get out of the country. it then when the cagey and clever isabelle makes her first and possibly last and fatal mistake in the movie. isabelle is told by the passport clerk and don carrier and she will have to wait a full 48 hours for her and and ruby and passport to clear. just enough time for the police to find and arrest her. outlandish ending that goes against almost everything and every ethic that in a film noir or crime movie. an ending that will not only blow your mind but your concept of what right and wrong in the world.
spoilers a bit ridicules made for tv movie has sexy and middle age gold digger isabelle collins and susan tucci and doing a number on every man she comes in contact with in the movie. first winning over their hearts then their wallets and then and when their no longer any use to her and thrown in the wastepaper basket like a used up kleenex tissue. isabelle first victim is non other then her abusive and on keeping isabelle from raiding his bank account and husband stewart and john ohurley. it later in the movie when isabelle gets very friendly with former plumber and now yacht salesman richard davis and philip casnoff and that she and without really telling him and has the totally love sick richard get a contract out on her unsuspecting husbands life. getting this ex convict and in fact as soon as he released from prison and daggett and nicholas campbell and to do the job on stewart richard soon finds out that he do not get exactly what he paid and $15 and 000. 00 in cash and for. getting a little too greedy daggett not only blew stewart brains out but took a solid gold watch and that stewart offered him in order to spear his life and as well. the watch was easily traced to daggett as he tried to pawn it at a local jewelry shop where he was quickly arrested. with doggett spilling his guts out on who hired him to whack stewart it doesn not take long for the long arm of the law to arrest stewart and by hiring doggett and killer isabelle husband to be ex plumber and yacht salesman richard davis. davis arrest by the police happens just as he and isabelle took the vows of matrimony in a local church. isabelle manipulates everyone and exclusively men that fall head over heels for her and to her advantage by getting them to do her dirty work. always playing the part of the naive housewife or widow or lover or even client isabelle seems to live a charmed life always one step ahead of the law and police. no matter what she does isabelle covers her pretty behind so well that it almost impossible to pin her down on any and in having others do them and of the many crimes that she commits and through a second party and in the film. after screwing and figuratively as well as literally and her first husband steven her second husband and for less then ten seconds and richard and finally her and or richard and attorney gavin kendrick and kamar de los rey and isabelle knows that it only a matter of time before the police get wise to her. with the d. a getting both richard and kendrick to turn evidence against her isabelle now knowing that everything is fast closing in on her makes her final move. getting everything in order and by transferring all her cash overseas and isabelle and her 10 year old daughter ruby and lauren collins and shoot down to the passport office in order to get clearance and passports and to get out of the country. it then when the cagey and clever isabelle makes her first and possibly last and fatal mistake in the movie. isabelle is told by the passport clerk and don carrier and she will have to wait a full 48 hours for her and and ruby and passport to clear. just enough time for the police to find and arrest her. outlandish ending that goes against almost everything and every ethic that in a film noir or crime movie. an ending that will not only blow your mind but your concept of what right and wrong in the world.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
a thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims and along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine and and here susan lucci performs as a siren and although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. isabelle (lucci) and inconstant wife of venture capitalist stewart collins (john ohurley) and begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman richard davis (philip casnoff) and simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for richard and apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. when davis becomes convinced that guileful isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband and he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself and coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent stewart. in the wake of the hit man assault upon collins and a pair of police detectives and performed by joe grifasi and dean mcdermott and become increasingly curious concerning isabelle possible involvement in the crime and while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata maneuvering. lucci and kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators and each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds and but ohurley and mcdermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. released upon a fremantle dvd and this largely lustreless affair depicting a man neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top flight visual and sound quality and and although no extra features are provided and the above average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer robert primes and composer stephen edwards.
a thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims and along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine and and here susan lucci performs as a siren and although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. isabelle (lucci) and inconstant wife of venture capitalist stewart collins (john ohurley) and begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman richard davis (philip casnoff) and simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for richard and apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. when davis becomes convinced that guileful isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband and he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself and coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent stewart. in the wake of the hit man assault upon collins and a pair of police detectives and performed by joe grifasi and dean mcdermott and become increasingly curious concerning isabelle possible involvement in the crime and while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata maneuvering. lucci and kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators and each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds and but ohurley and mcdermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. released upon a fremantle dvd and this largely lustreless affair depicting a man neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top flight visual and sound quality and and although no extra features are provided and the above average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer robert primes and composer stephen edwards.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5. negative for what affects me and it is definitely one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i still keep wondering why i watched it until the end. first of all and the plot is totally hopeless and and the acting truly awful. i think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than susan lucci while concerning mr. kamar del reyes and i think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his valley of the dolls. to sum up and it is total waste of time(and i am trying to stay polite. ) to avoid at any cost. my rating is 1 and i still think it is well paid and but since we cannot give a o.
i am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5. negative for what affects me and it is definitely one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i still keep wondering why i watched it until the end. first of all and the plot is totally hopeless and and the acting truly awful. i think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than susan lucci while concerning mr. kamar del reyes and i think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his valley of the dolls. to sum up and it is total waste of time(and i am trying to stay polite. ) to avoid at any cost. my rating is 1 and i still think it is well paid and but since we cannot give a o.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this kind of film has become old hat by now and hasn not it. the whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop. it sure sounds like a good idea represent a great ensemble cast and some good gags and and some human drama about what could have or might have been. unfortunately and there is no central event that binds them all together and like there was in the big chill and one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. you end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. the superficiality this creates is not just annoying and it maddening. the below average script doesn not help.
this kind of film has become old hat by now and hasn not it. the whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop. it sure sounds like a good idea represent a great ensemble cast and some good gags and and some human drama about what could have or might have been. unfortunately and there is no central event that binds them all together and like there was in the big chill and one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. you end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. the superficiality this creates is not just annoying and it maddening. the below average script doesn not help.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i was looking over our dvd tower last night for something to watch. we were between netflix mailings and it was a quiet saturday night. i pulled one out that i never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. from the jacket and it sounded like a rip off of the big chill but and with the all star cast and felt it might be worth watching. boy was i wrong. not only was it like the big chill and it was a rip off almost character by character. the bill paxton character was a copy of william hurt (where have you been all this time role) spoiler warning and and lo and behold and he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin or camp). kimberly williams equals meg tilly while jerk womanizer matt craven equals jeff goldblum etc. and etc. i found myself wondering why i am even watching these people. there was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. how did unca lou even find these characters after 20 years. plus it wasn not even funny and except when perkins fell and err flopped out of bed the first morning and it was a sign and i missed it. after it was over and i asked my wife and were there any endearing characters in this film. . are you sleeping over there. she replied and no and i am still thinking. no and none i can think of.
i was looking over our dvd tower last night for something to watch. we were between netflix mailings and it was a quiet saturday night. i pulled one out that i never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. from the jacket and it sounded like a rip off of the big chill but and with the all star cast and felt it might be worth watching. boy was i wrong. not only was it like the big chill and it was a rip off almost character by character. the bill paxton character was a copy of william hurt (where have you been all this time role) spoiler warning and and lo and behold and he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin or camp). kimberly williams equals meg tilly while jerk womanizer matt craven equals jeff goldblum etc. and etc. i found myself wondering why i am even watching these people. there was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. how did unca lou even find these characters after 20 years. plus it wasn not even funny and except when perkins fell and err flopped out of bed the first morning and it was a sign and i missed it. after it was over and i asked my wife and were there any endearing characters in this film. . are you sleeping over there. she replied and no and i am still thinking. no and none i can think of.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
like watching a neighbor summer camp home movies and indian summer is a sleep inducing bore. eight alumni campers are barely introduced and when unbelievably boring flashbacks begin for characters we know nothing about. fine actors and alan arkin and and bill paxton are totally wasted in this film. one camper observation that everything seems so much smaller than i remember it is repeated at least ten times and enough to make you squirm. the anticipated pranks are neither funny or original and unless you think that short sheeting is a real howler. this movie was a great disappointment considering the ample talent involved. indian summer did not make me homesick and just sick. merk.
like watching a neighbor summer camp home movies and indian summer is a sleep inducing bore. eight alumni campers are barely introduced and when unbelievably boring flashbacks begin for characters we know nothing about. fine actors and alan arkin and and bill paxton are totally wasted in this film. one camper observation that everything seems so much smaller than i remember it is repeated at least ten times and enough to make you squirm. the anticipated pranks are neither funny or original and unless you think that short sheeting is a real howler. this movie was a great disappointment considering the ample talent involved. indian summer did not make me homesick and just sick. merk.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. could this ever happen in a million years. it simply a fantasy and and a boring one at that. do they become teenagers again. do they reenact their pranks and games and good times. they may try but ultimately the answer is represent no. is there any intrigue. any suspense. horror. comedy. none of the above. how anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. i wanted to like this movie while i tried to like this movie and but my brain refused.
wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. could this ever happen in a million years. it simply a fantasy and and a boring one at that. do they become teenagers again. do they reenact their pranks and games and good times. they may try but ultimately the answer is represent no. is there any intrigue. any suspense. horror. comedy. none of the above. how anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. i wanted to like this movie while i tried to like this movie and but my brain refused.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
no wonder that the historian ian kershaw and author of the groundbreaking hitler biography and who originally was the scientific consultant for this tv film and dissociated himself from it. the film is historically just too incorrect. the mistakes start right away when hitler father alois dies at home and while in reality he died in a pub. in the film and hitler moves from vienna to munich in 1914 and while in reality he actually moved to munich in 1913. i could go on endlessly. hitler childhood and youth are portrayed way too short and which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. important persons of the early time of the party and like hitler fatherly friend dietrich eckart or the party philosopher alfred rosenberg are totally missing. the characterization of ernst hanfstaengl is very problematic. in the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises hitler. the script obviously follows hanfstaengl own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. in fact and hanfstaengl was an anti semite and was crazy about his fuehrer. but the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of hitler himself. he is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly and has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. after watching the film and one wonders and how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. since we all know and what an evil criminal hitler was and naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. but facts is and that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. his comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them and but because they liked this strange man. beyond all those historical mistakes and the film is well made and the actors are first class and the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.
no wonder that the historian ian kershaw and author of the groundbreaking hitler biography and who originally was the scientific consultant for this tv film and dissociated himself from it. the film is historically just too incorrect. the mistakes start right away when hitler father alois dies at home and while in reality he died in a pub. in the film and hitler moves from vienna to munich in 1914 and while in reality he actually moved to munich in 1913. i could go on endlessly. hitler childhood and youth are portrayed way too short and which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. important persons of the early time of the party and like hitler fatherly friend dietrich eckart or the party philosopher alfred rosenberg are totally missing. the characterization of ernst hanfstaengl is very problematic. in the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises hitler. the script obviously follows hanfstaengl own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. in fact and hanfstaengl was an anti semite and was crazy about his fuehrer. but the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of hitler himself. he is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly and has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. after watching the film and one wonders and how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. since we all know and what an evil criminal hitler was and naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. but facts is and that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. his comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them and but because they liked this strange man. beyond all those historical mistakes and the film is well made and the actors are first class and the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
as usual and i was really looking forward to a new tv or film on a favourite subject of mine makes a nice change from a strangely familiar documentary about kursk or stalingrad on the history channel. i avidly looked forward to pearl harbour and enemy at the gates but was rudely brought down to earth with the realisation of the malevolent and stupid ifying power of hollywood and its ability to spend an absolute fortune on tripe. so yet again i got excited about the rise of evil and especially as i heard that ian kershaw was involved and as i have enjoyed his books. i can see why he quit. to quote some guy responsible for this rubbish representthe kershaw book was an academic piece and he said. it wasquite dry. we needed more incidents. incidents. are they totally nuts. hitler life cannot be said to be without incident yes kershaw two volume hitler biographies were long and detailed and but they were supposed to be. the thesis behind rise of evil seems to be representhitler was a very bad man no he was a very bad man and who hated jews and and just in case you miss this and were going to emphasise the fact in every scene in the film. there was no effort whatsoever to try and explain the mood of the time and and why hitler may have adopted the views and strategy he did. needless to say unlike the generally excellent nazis a warning from history this film neglected to point out the fact that nearly all of the leaders of the munich communist rising were jewish and and that this may have coloured his views on the subject and his axiomatic linking of the jews with bolshevism an absolutely crucial aspect to understanding much of the nazi era. but there was not much understanding to be done the film makers weren not going to go there and so we just got all the stuff we knew about anyway. we certainly do not get the fascinating fact that kershaw alludes to and which has hitler briefly being a socialist or communist immediately after ww1. that would of course be far too complex for the film to handle and and might even detract from the relentless he was very bad mantra which bangs away incessantly. we know he was a bad man. however and we also know that he was a mesmerising figure both as a public speaker and in more private situations. he could be polite and even sympathetic and and of course espoused some views like vegetarianism and anti alcohol and anti smoking that many guardian readers could agree with. he was also famously fond of animals and hence why that wholly invented dog flogging scene was so absurd. he was also and from all the accounts i have seen and a brave soldier in ww1. whilst we saw him with his iron cross and we never get to see how he won it (acts of bravery were not in the script and needless to say). we also get no insight whatsoever into why he was so fired up by his war experiences and whilst sassoon and owen and brook and remarque and so many others found it so repellent an experience. and again and like the point above re the jewish or bolshevik link and this is vital to anyone understanding about the subject. why did he love war so much. why did he think it was always a good idea and despite massive evidence to the contrary. why do not he care about his colleagues who died. or maybe he did but still drew the wrong conclusions. this film certainly do not have anything of any interest to say on this either. as all too often these days and the film is a classic example of amaking history relevant to the present and inventing stuff or leaving awkward facts out to fit in with the present which all too often is to cater to the lowest common denominator and where you do not trust your audience an inch and so you just ram stuff down their throats and knowing (sadly correctly) that you will always get away with it because there are so many dumb fools in the world. history is really about making us relevant to the past and seeing how it colours our present and for better and for worse. this rubbish was a great opportunity and lost again. they spent millions on it and and the locations and large scenes were impressive and but told us nothing at all we do not know already and and promoted no understanding of this dark period in human history. wt.
as usual and i was really looking forward to a new tv or film on a favourite subject of mine makes a nice change from a strangely familiar documentary about kursk or stalingrad on the history channel. i avidly looked forward to pearl harbour and enemy at the gates but was rudely brought down to earth with the realisation of the malevolent and stupid ifying power of hollywood and its ability to spend an absolute fortune on tripe. so yet again i got excited about the rise of evil and especially as i heard that ian kershaw was involved and as i have enjoyed his books. i can see why he quit. to quote some guy responsible for this rubbish representthe kershaw book was an academic piece and he said. it wasquite dry. we needed more incidents. incidents. are they totally nuts. hitler life cannot be said to be without incident yes kershaw two volume hitler biographies were long and detailed and but they were supposed to be. the thesis behind rise of evil seems to be representhitler was a very bad man no he was a very bad man and who hated jews and and just in case you miss this and were going to emphasise the fact in every scene in the film. there was no effort whatsoever to try and explain the mood of the time and and why hitler may have adopted the views and strategy he did. needless to say unlike the generally excellent nazis a warning from history this film neglected to point out the fact that nearly all of the leaders of the munich communist rising were jewish and and that this may have coloured his views on the subject and his axiomatic linking of the jews with bolshevism an absolutely crucial aspect to understanding much of the nazi era. but there was not much understanding to be done the film makers weren not going to go there and so we just got all the stuff we knew about anyway. we certainly do not get the fascinating fact that kershaw alludes to and which has hitler briefly being a socialist or communist immediately after ww1. that would of course be far too complex for the film to handle and and might even detract from the relentless he was very bad mantra which bangs away incessantly. we know he was a bad man. however and we also know that he was a mesmerising figure both as a public speaker and in more private situations. he could be polite and even sympathetic and and of course espoused some views like vegetarianism and anti alcohol and anti smoking that many guardian readers could agree with. he was also famously fond of animals and hence why that wholly invented dog flogging scene was so absurd. he was also and from all the accounts i have seen and a brave soldier in ww1. whilst we saw him with his iron cross and we never get to see how he won it (acts of bravery were not in the script and needless to say). we also get no insight whatsoever into why he was so fired up by his war experiences and whilst sassoon and owen and brook and remarque and so many others found it so repellent an experience. and again and like the point above re the jewish or bolshevik link and this is vital to anyone understanding about the subject. why did he love war so much. why did he think it was always a good idea and despite massive evidence to the contrary. why do not he care about his colleagues who died. or maybe he did but still drew the wrong conclusions. this film certainly do not have anything of any interest to say on this either. as all too often these days and the film is a classic example of amaking history relevant to the present and inventing stuff or leaving awkward facts out to fit in with the present which all too often is to cater to the lowest common denominator and where you do not trust your audience an inch and so you just ram stuff down their throats and knowing (sadly correctly) that you will always get away with it because there are so many dumb fools in the world. history is really about making us relevant to the past and seeing how it colours our present and for better and for worse. this rubbish was a great opportunity and lost again. they spent millions on it and and the locations and large scenes were impressive and but told us nothing at all we do not know already and and promoted no understanding of this dark period in human history. wt.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
well first off i would like to add that i myself is somewhat of a historian so what i look for in a film that is based upon historical events is that it is actually based upon historical facts. but this is however not the case here. sure the movie is entertaining and all but the fact that it isn not entirely based upon true facts is more than annoying. hitler wasn not anti semitic in his youth and he even worked for jews before world war one. it was however during world war one and after that he formed his views about the jews. his upbringing in this movie is also inaccurate and hitler as a child wasn not a disturbed little brat. he had a more or less normal upbringing. nothing is mentioned about his lost brothers and other important pieces that adds to the puzzle that is hitler. robert carlyle is a great actor but he doesn not really fit in the role as hitler. hitler wasn not as impossible and unstable as he is portrait ed here. under his younger years he was a charismatic person whom manipulated people through his charms. his unstable behavior and rage outbursts started in the turning point of the war. i would like to see a film about hitler life that is based upon real historical facts and not accusations. i really hate when people point a blaming finger at for example hitler and others and tell inaccurate stories just to paint a picture of them as pure evil. it is much better to actually tell the story exactly as it was so that everyone can learn what it was like. the ones behind this movie should have made some research before making this. because it seems as if they do not even know what really happened. hitler wasn not even shot in the revolutionary march in munch and his shoulder was ripped out of its socket. it gives you more to see a good documentary than seeing this.
well first off i would like to add that i myself is somewhat of a historian so what i look for in a film that is based upon historical events is that it is actually based upon historical facts. but this is however not the case here. sure the movie is entertaining and all but the fact that it isn not entirely based upon true facts is more than annoying. hitler wasn not anti semitic in his youth and he even worked for jews before world war one. it was however during world war one and after that he formed his views about the jews. his upbringing in this movie is also inaccurate and hitler as a child wasn not a disturbed little brat. he had a more or less normal upbringing. nothing is mentioned about his lost brothers and other important pieces that adds to the puzzle that is hitler. robert carlyle is a great actor but he doesn not really fit in the role as hitler. hitler wasn not as impossible and unstable as he is portrait ed here. under his younger years he was a charismatic person whom manipulated people through his charms. his unstable behavior and rage outbursts started in the turning point of the war. i would like to see a film about hitler life that is based upon real historical facts and not accusations. i really hate when people point a blaming finger at for example hitler and others and tell inaccurate stories just to paint a picture of them as pure evil. it is much better to actually tell the story exactly as it was so that everyone can learn what it was like. the ones behind this movie should have made some research before making this. because it seems as if they do not even know what really happened. hitler wasn not even shot in the revolutionary march in munch and his shoulder was ripped out of its socket. it gives you more to see a good documentary than seeing this.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i watched this hoping to find out something i didn`t know about modern history most infamous man and couldn`t help thinking that history has been rewritten in hitler representthe rise of evil . hitler was so obsessed with his niece that he threatened to have one of her admirer shot . hitler turned up with a gun in his hand to arrest ernst rohm . forgive me for asking but haven`t the writers confused adolph hitler with tony montana from scarface . that bad enough but what really offended me was that there entire chunks of historical context missing in this mini series . germany lost the first world war and the allied powers made germany pay a heavy price for doing so. it was this economic environment that led the german people to have someone anyone to restore their pride and that why they turned to nazism . the german humiliation of the 1920s caused by the allied powers seems to be entirely missing therefore there is no way that hitler representthe rise of evil can be taken seriously as a historical document and and i haven`t even mentioned that himmler and goering are conspicous by their absence there is one positive point about the mini series and that robert carlyle in the title role . okay some of his mannerisms are wrong and his voice is a little too loud ( archive recordings show that hitler had a soft seductive voice ) but carlyle is a charismatic actor and he does manage to communicate hitler own charisma on screen . comments in the british press that carlyle resembles the synth player from sparks more than adolph hitler are unfounded and he gives one of the better interpretations of hitler. i liked the performance by robert carlyle but i hated everything else about this mini series and wondered why on earth it was made in the first place . there nothing to recommend it to serious history fans.
i watched this hoping to find out something i didn`t know about modern history most infamous man and couldn`t help thinking that history has been rewritten in hitler representthe rise of evil . hitler was so obsessed with his niece that he threatened to have one of her admirer shot . hitler turned up with a gun in his hand to arrest ernst rohm . forgive me for asking but haven`t the writers confused adolph hitler with tony montana from scarface . that bad enough but what really offended me was that there entire chunks of historical context missing in this mini series . germany lost the first world war and the allied powers made germany pay a heavy price for doing so. it was this economic environment that led the german people to have someone anyone to restore their pride and that why they turned to nazism . the german humiliation of the 1920s caused by the allied powers seems to be entirely missing therefore there is no way that hitler representthe rise of evil can be taken seriously as a historical document and and i haven`t even mentioned that himmler and goering are conspicous by their absence there is one positive point about the mini series and that robert carlyle in the title role . okay some of his mannerisms are wrong and his voice is a little too loud ( archive recordings show that hitler had a soft seductive voice ) but carlyle is a charismatic actor and he does manage to communicate hitler own charisma on screen . comments in the british press that carlyle resembles the synth player from sparks more than adolph hitler are unfounded and he gives one of the better interpretations of hitler. i liked the performance by robert carlyle but i hated everything else about this mini series and wondered why on earth it was made in the first place . there nothing to recommend it to serious history fans.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
just imagine the real hitler and who was a master of propaganda and speech and would have been such a mumbling moron as carlyle portrayed him in this film. nobody would have followed him and not even a desperate and unemployed guy in the 1920s. this is just a hollywood cardboard piece of propaganda itself and disguised as true history. i pity everyone who actually believed anything from this show. carlyle and the producers do not get anything right with this. why was hitler able to win so many people and a whole county for his ideas if we was such a sausage. why did people follow him to death. by portraying him as such a loser they make their own film totally unbelievable. this film is a mixture of old ww2 propaganda and mtv urban myths about one of the most important persons of the last century. imagine a film about churchill where the director only shows him as a drunkard for 90 mins. this film is a disgrace and i wonder how they could talk an actor like carlyle into this dreck.
just imagine the real hitler and who was a master of propaganda and speech and would have been such a mumbling moron as carlyle portrayed him in this film. nobody would have followed him and not even a desperate and unemployed guy in the 1920s. this is just a hollywood cardboard piece of propaganda itself and disguised as true history. i pity everyone who actually believed anything from this show. carlyle and the producers do not get anything right with this. why was hitler able to win so many people and a whole county for his ideas if we was such a sausage. why did people follow him to death. by portraying him as such a loser they make their own film totally unbelievable. this film is a mixture of old ww2 propaganda and mtv urban myths about one of the most important persons of the last century. imagine a film about churchill where the director only shows him as a drunkard for 90 mins. this film is a disgrace and i wonder how they could talk an actor like carlyle into this dreck.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this could well be the worst film i have ever seen. despite what mikshelt claims and this movie isn not even close to being historically accurate. it starts badly and then it all downhill from there. we have hitler father cursing his own bad luck on the fact that he would married his niece. they were in fact and second cousins. hitler mother and klara and called his father and alois and uncle because alois had been adopted and raised by klara grandfather and brought up as his son and when he was really his nephew. alois was much older than klara and so as a child she would got into the habit of calling alois and uncle. the scene in the trenches where hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. we see hitler chase the dog through the trench and when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. in the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man and but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors and and every last one and we are told and is killed outright. how then and if hitler was the only person to survive the scene and did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told. did hitler himself go around boasting about it. i do not think so. next up and hitler bullies and intimidates a poor and stressed out and war weary jewish officer into giving him an iron cross. i can only assume that this jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the fatherland and and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop and because i am certain that iron crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce. all the grotesque clichés are here and not least the calming and hypnotic effect of wagner music upon the little man. if only the producers had kept ian kershaw on side. then they might have discovered that franz lehar merry widow was more likely to float the fuhrer boat than any flying dutchman from the cannon of richard wagner. hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music. i could go on but i would be at it for hours. give it a miss.
this could well be the worst film i have ever seen. despite what mikshelt claims and this movie isn not even close to being historically accurate. it starts badly and then it all downhill from there. we have hitler father cursing his own bad luck on the fact that he would married his niece. they were in fact and second cousins. hitler mother and klara and called his father and alois and uncle because alois had been adopted and raised by klara grandfather and brought up as his son and when he was really his nephew. alois was much older than klara and so as a child she would got into the habit of calling alois and uncle. the scene in the trenches where hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. we see hitler chase the dog through the trench and when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. in the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man and but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors and and every last one and we are told and is killed outright. how then and if hitler was the only person to survive the scene and did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told. did hitler himself go around boasting about it. i do not think so. next up and hitler bullies and intimidates a poor and stressed out and war weary jewish officer into giving him an iron cross. i can only assume that this jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the fatherland and and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop and because i am certain that iron crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce. all the grotesque clichés are here and not least the calming and hypnotic effect of wagner music upon the little man. if only the producers had kept ian kershaw on side. then they might have discovered that franz lehar merry widow was more likely to float the fuhrer boat than any flying dutchman from the cannon of richard wagner. hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music. i could go on but i would be at it for hours. give it a miss.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i saw that movie and and i was shocked. robert carlyle isn not hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be hitler. the movie lies and it doesn not reflect the truth. in the scene were hitler hit the guy with his gun. hitler never had hit anybody and he do not hit people with his fist and but with the fists of soldiers. understand. another thing is represent it is too obvious and that hitler is that evil and he was more clever and than shown in this movie. no german would have accepted him as the leader and because the can see that he is evil. so the real hitler haven not shown his evil side to the people. have any of you yankees watched the movie der untergang or the dawnfall. this is a great movie and with amazing actors. and its a german movie. i think and this theme of nazi germany and should not be realized as a movie by people who do not know anything of germany. people. watch der untergang represent http represent or or www. imdb. com or title or tt0363163 or its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.
i saw that movie and and i was shocked. robert carlyle isn not hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be hitler. the movie lies and it doesn not reflect the truth. in the scene were hitler hit the guy with his gun. hitler never had hit anybody and he do not hit people with his fist and but with the fists of soldiers. understand. another thing is represent it is too obvious and that hitler is that evil and he was more clever and than shown in this movie. no german would have accepted him as the leader and because the can see that he is evil. so the real hitler haven not shown his evil side to the people. have any of you yankees watched the movie der untergang or the dawnfall. this is a great movie and with amazing actors. and its a german movie. i think and this theme of nazi germany and should not be realized as a movie by people who do not know anything of germany. people. watch der untergang represent http represent or or www. imdb. com or title or tt0363163 or its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if another hitler ever arises and it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film and which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land and sane people would cross the street to avoid him and and he would have died in a ditch and nameless and unknown. anyone who reads the accounts of hitler close companions the autobiography of his secretary traudl junge for instance will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly and intelligent and generous man. he was also a brilliant orator and and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made and when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. ditto the overstated anti semitism and which was neither a central plank of the early nazis who were primarily anti communist nor uncommon or unusual for the times. the film makes it look as though hitler sole ambition from the start was the holocaust. if you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions and you can ignore fleck lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. look instead for a charming and charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation and and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. i am afraid his personality will be much more like barack obama than fred phelps. i hoped for much here and and got nothing but caricature. the fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. this is the historical equivalent of reefer madness.
if another hitler ever arises and it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film and which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land and sane people would cross the street to avoid him and and he would have died in a ditch and nameless and unknown. anyone who reads the accounts of hitler close companions the autobiography of his secretary traudl junge for instance will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly and intelligent and generous man. he was also a brilliant orator and and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made and when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. ditto the overstated anti semitism and which was neither a central plank of the early nazis who were primarily anti communist nor uncommon or unusual for the times. the film makes it look as though hitler sole ambition from the start was the holocaust. if you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions and you can ignore fleck lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. look instead for a charming and charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation and and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. i am afraid his personality will be much more like barack obama than fred phelps. i hoped for much here and and got nothing but caricature. the fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. this is the historical equivalent of reefer madness.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of adolf hitler that i have ever watched. robert carlyle is a wonderful actor and but to cast him as hitler is just plain wrong. to cast liev schrieber as hitler longtime friend and aid and haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the simon wiesenthal centre. a j w playing a nazi supporter and bad bad bad casting. this was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. this was hollywood rubbish at its finest and cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years. the fake german accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to german people everywhere. my mother is german and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from american or english or german all in the same sentence. the supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. jenna malone as the fated geli raubal and was splendid though and she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in hitler shadow. if you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of hitler early years leading up to and including the war or holocaust and rent inside the third reich 1983 starring rutger hauer as albert speer and derek jacobi as hitler. it was good and made more sense then this baloney. as a historical researcher of the third reich i can honestly tell you and this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.
this is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of adolf hitler that i have ever watched. robert carlyle is a wonderful actor and but to cast him as hitler is just plain wrong. to cast liev schrieber as hitler longtime friend and aid and haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the simon wiesenthal centre. a j w playing a nazi supporter and bad bad bad casting. this was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. this was hollywood rubbish at its finest and cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years. the fake german accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to german people everywhere. my mother is german and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from american or english or german all in the same sentence. the supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. jenna malone as the fated geli raubal and was splendid though and she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in hitler shadow. if you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of hitler early years leading up to and including the war or holocaust and rent inside the third reich 1983 starring rutger hauer as albert speer and derek jacobi as hitler. it was good and made more sense then this baloney. as a historical researcher of the third reich i can honestly tell you and this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the back cover of the dvd (missed this one when it came out) hails hitler the rise of evil as a triumph (the new york post) and mesmerizing (newsweek). well and never mind the post but really and who ever wrote that word in newsweek in the same context with this peace of and ahem and art should be sacked. i do not no where to start with. why try to paint the picture of hitler evil with colors that did not exist. he was evil alright and but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals and the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on. the actors are good and so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one dimensional characters. some kind of curse here with peter o toole represent this is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case tv production and to be accurate). the first one was of course the legendary galigula. the list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by imdb and so i think i will leave it here. this one is ok if it on telly and you do not have anything else to do and but believe me it best left on the shelf in your local virgin store.
the back cover of the dvd (missed this one when it came out) hails hitler the rise of evil as a triumph (the new york post) and mesmerizing (newsweek). well and never mind the post but really and who ever wrote that word in newsweek in the same context with this peace of and ahem and art should be sacked. i do not no where to start with. why try to paint the picture of hitler evil with colors that did not exist. he was evil alright and but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals and the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on. the actors are good and so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one dimensional characters. some kind of curse here with peter o toole represent this is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case tv production and to be accurate). the first one was of course the legendary galigula. the list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by imdb and so i think i will leave it here. this one is ok if it on telly and you do not have anything else to do and but believe me it best left on the shelf in your local virgin store.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. anyone who watched this film now probably think of hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some chicago gangster. i can only to say that there is much better films about hitler and germany in those years and that rise of evil is very much under average. i can recommend german film downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of switzerland actor bruno ganz in a roll of adolf hitler.
i watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. anyone who watched this film now probably think of hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some chicago gangster. i can only to say that there is much better films about hitler and germany in those years and that rise of evil is very much under average. i can recommend german film downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of switzerland actor bruno ganz in a roll of adolf hitler.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
simply put and this is a simplistic and one dimensional film. the title and the rise to evil and should tell you that this isn not going to attempt to be anything deep or do much with hitler character. rather and from the first minutes of the movie where we see baby hitler looking evil with evil music playing the background and we are given a view of hitler that presents his as a cartoony supervillian and seemingly ripped right out of a saturday morning tv show. the film really wants to make its case that hitler was evil but does anyone need a movie to convince them that hitler was evil. ultimately and making him such a one dimensionally evil character is both boring and confusing (one must ask how the inept and phsycotic character in the film cold ever persuade a nation to follow him or be named time man of the year). this film had a great opportunity to take a figure who has committed some of the most horrible acts in the 20th century and and try to delve into his mind. instead and it basically just says and hey. hitler was evil. just thought you might like to know. over and over again. the great irony is that the film still was attacked for presenting too sympathetic a view of the character. give me a break.
simply put and this is a simplistic and one dimensional film. the title and the rise to evil and should tell you that this isn not going to attempt to be anything deep or do much with hitler character. rather and from the first minutes of the movie where we see baby hitler looking evil with evil music playing the background and we are given a view of hitler that presents his as a cartoony supervillian and seemingly ripped right out of a saturday morning tv show. the film really wants to make its case that hitler was evil but does anyone need a movie to convince them that hitler was evil. ultimately and making him such a one dimensionally evil character is both boring and confusing (one must ask how the inept and phsycotic character in the film cold ever persuade a nation to follow him or be named time man of the year). this film had a great opportunity to take a figure who has committed some of the most horrible acts in the 20th century and and try to delve into his mind. instead and it basically just says and hey. hitler was evil. just thought you might like to know. over and over again. the great irony is that the film still was attacked for presenting too sympathetic a view of the character. give me a break.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. a horrible joke of a film and i cringed throughout. terrible and trite and distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths. the famous hitler biographer ian kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. however and he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused and and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved). one scene shows hitler beating his dog. there is not one source for this. hitler loved animals above people. he brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in europe and banned vivisection and animal experimentation. he was also a vegetarian. the film turns his gaining of the iron cross into a farce and involving bribery. utter lies. he was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time. there are no historical documents showing that hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. not one. apart from these and hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick. if he was even half as ignorant and demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. never mind become the leader of germany. honestly and this film was utterly terrible. go watch downfall and give this a very wide berth.
i have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. a horrible joke of a film and i cringed throughout. terrible and trite and distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths. the famous hitler biographer ian kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. however and he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused and and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved). one scene shows hitler beating his dog. there is not one source for this. hitler loved animals above people. he brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in europe and banned vivisection and animal experimentation. he was also a vegetarian. the film turns his gaining of the iron cross into a farce and involving bribery. utter lies. he was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time. there are no historical documents showing that hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. not one. apart from these and hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick. if he was even half as ignorant and demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. never mind become the leader of germany. honestly and this film was utterly terrible. go watch downfall and give this a very wide berth.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have recently watched this movie twice and and i can not seem to understand why the hll the makers made this pile of crap. i mean and yes and it gives a great impression of hitler environment and and i mean the way they reproduced austria in the late 1890 and wwi and the inter war period. what i can not understand is why they pictured hitler as a 100% pure evil and mad and unreliable and mentally unstable freak. he was after all a very thoughtful and loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides and no doubt about that. but why in heaven name portray him in this way. all of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario and leaving nothing but a very propaganda like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. yes and he threw germany into the devastating 2nd world war. yes and he was racist and and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. all true. but again while why the hell did they plain lie to the public. to warn us. i absolutely do not think this movie was a warning. the true danger of hitler and the nazi was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. the fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every german alive (not to mention austrians and a lot of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization and not the fact hitler was such a weirdo. if it would have been like the makers make us believe i would have been convinced that the german people were retarded. a man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader not to mention reichskanzler. negative .
i have recently watched this movie twice and and i can not seem to understand why the hll the makers made this pile of crap. i mean and yes and it gives a great impression of hitler environment and and i mean the way they reproduced austria in the late 1890 and wwi and the inter war period. what i can not understand is why they pictured hitler as a 100% pure evil and mad and unreliable and mentally unstable freak. he was after all a very thoughtful and loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides and no doubt about that. but why in heaven name portray him in this way. all of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario and leaving nothing but a very propaganda like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. yes and he threw germany into the devastating 2nd world war. yes and he was racist and and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. all true. but again while why the hell did they plain lie to the public. to warn us. i absolutely do not think this movie was a warning. the true danger of hitler and the nazi was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. the fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every german alive (not to mention austrians and a lot of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization and not the fact hitler was such a weirdo. if it would have been like the makers make us believe i would have been convinced that the german people were retarded. a man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader not to mention reichskanzler. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am not sure it was the language or the poor acting and but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake. after seeing der untergang this is a huge disappointment. there no connection between different scenes and and the acting is so incredibly poor i couldn not even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential. and above all and everyone in germany speaks english. big mistake. the german language has a certain sound to it and and especially hitler himself only sounds like hitler when he speaking or yelling german. the way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot and the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened. whether it the english or the fact that i have already seen der untergang and everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.
i am not sure it was the language or the poor acting and but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake. after seeing der untergang this is a huge disappointment. there no connection between different scenes and and the acting is so incredibly poor i couldn not even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential. and above all and everyone in germany speaks english. big mistake. the german language has a certain sound to it and and especially hitler himself only sounds like hitler when he speaking or yelling german. the way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot and the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened. whether it the english or the fact that i have already seen der untergang and everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this 1919 to 1933 germany looks hardly like a post wwii czech capitol. oh sorry and it is the czech capitol and it is 2003 and how funny. this is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. röhm is a head higher than adolf and looks so damned good and göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the führer always seems to look like 56. and the buildings and folks and even buildings have been young and sometimes. especially 1919 were a lot of houses in germany nearly new (the wwi does not reach german cities. ). no crumbling plaster. then the reichstagsbuilding. there have never been urban canyons around this building and never. and this may sound to you all like a miracle represent in the year 1933 the greater berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines and some even with turntable ladders and but none with a hand pump. one last thing represent what kind of playmobil castle was this at the final sequence. for me this was a kind of adolf adventures in wonderland.
this 1919 to 1933 germany looks hardly like a post wwii czech capitol. oh sorry and it is the czech capitol and it is 2003 and how funny. this is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. röhm is a head higher than adolf and looks so damned good and göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the führer always seems to look like 56. and the buildings and folks and even buildings have been young and sometimes. especially 1919 were a lot of houses in germany nearly new (the wwi does not reach german cities. ). no crumbling plaster. then the reichstagsbuilding. there have never been urban canyons around this building and never. and this may sound to you all like a miracle represent in the year 1933 the greater berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines and some even with turntable ladders and but none with a hand pump. one last thing represent what kind of playmobil castle was this at the final sequence. for me this was a kind of adolf adventures in wonderland.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
advertised by channel seven in australia as the untold story and this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. this cowardice and self censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series and and is ultimately responsible for its failure. robert carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century and but he is hamstrung by two things. the lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his northern uk heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance and and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. apparently and acknowledging the fact that hitler was raised in a catholic family is off limits and but insulting millions of vikings and their descendants by having carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about valhalla is quite okay. well and here a clue for the writers any person familiar with viking mythology will tell you that valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle and two things that the nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason hitler has never been excommunicated from the catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member and we will never learn what this awful period of the world history has to teach us. so now that we have managed to insult vikings and the citizens of scandinavian countries in this sham and you would think the series would stop there and but it doesn not. stockard channing listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow raising and given that her voice is heard and and her face seen and for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits and making it patently transparent that more footage of hitler early days were shot and but not included because of a typical nanny state fear of offending someone. it is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into hilter character do not feature him at all. until we learn to stop sugar coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of germany was mostly unopposed to hitler views and and not necessarily through ignorance and we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes and germany was a democracy pre hitler) can occur anywhere and we are doomed. that the one thing this mini series got right in portraying. unfortunately and that element is lost in attempts to make hitler religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people and and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. david letterman show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. they really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star and that how badly it was written. all in all and this politically correct farce of a bio pic is worth no points and but i gave it two because robert carlyle definitely deserves better material than this and and he is about the only thing in it that works.
advertised by channel seven in australia as the untold story and this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. this cowardice and self censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series and and is ultimately responsible for its failure. robert carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century and but he is hamstrung by two things. the lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his northern uk heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance and and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. apparently and acknowledging the fact that hitler was raised in a catholic family is off limits and but insulting millions of vikings and their descendants by having carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about valhalla is quite okay. well and here a clue for the writers any person familiar with viking mythology will tell you that valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle and two things that the nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason hitler has never been excommunicated from the catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member and we will never learn what this awful period of the world history has to teach us. so now that we have managed to insult vikings and the citizens of scandinavian countries in this sham and you would think the series would stop there and but it doesn not. stockard channing listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow raising and given that her voice is heard and and her face seen and for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits and making it patently transparent that more footage of hitler early days were shot and but not included because of a typical nanny state fear of offending someone. it is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into hilter character do not feature him at all. until we learn to stop sugar coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of germany was mostly unopposed to hitler views and and not necessarily through ignorance and we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes and germany was a democracy pre hitler) can occur anywhere and we are doomed. that the one thing this mini series got right in portraying. unfortunately and that element is lost in attempts to make hitler religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people and and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. david letterman show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. they really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star and that how badly it was written. all in all and this politically correct farce of a bio pic is worth no points and but i gave it two because robert carlyle definitely deserves better material than this and and he is about the only thing in it that works.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if anybody really wants to understand hitler and read wwi history not wwii history. find out what happened during that war and how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. how so many soldiers went insane and from what they saw during wwi and at the time they called it shellshocked now the call it post traumatic stress disorder. if you learn the true horrors of wwi and you will begin to understand hitler. you will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death and not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them. this movie unfortunately misses that and as so many others do. read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie paths of glory and the only good wwi movie ever made. you will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie and the sense of helplessness and and a utter devaluation of human life and as nothing more than bullet catchers. thats what this movie misses and its really the key point to understanding germany. a lost war and where millions and millions of germans lost their lives and for no real reason. then comes an utter economic collapse and following the war. those are the factors that create extremism. the loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. unfortunately this movie ignored these factors and and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. with really no real value and there are fictional movie based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of hitler than this does. they just threw hitlers name on this so it would sell more.
if anybody really wants to understand hitler and read wwi history not wwii history. find out what happened during that war and how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. how so many soldiers went insane and from what they saw during wwi and at the time they called it shellshocked now the call it post traumatic stress disorder. if you learn the true horrors of wwi and you will begin to understand hitler. you will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death and not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them. this movie unfortunately misses that and as so many others do. read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie paths of glory and the only good wwi movie ever made. you will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie and the sense of helplessness and and a utter devaluation of human life and as nothing more than bullet catchers. thats what this movie misses and its really the key point to understanding germany. a lost war and where millions and millions of germans lost their lives and for no real reason. then comes an utter economic collapse and following the war. those are the factors that create extremism. the loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. unfortunately this movie ignored these factors and and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. with really no real value and there are fictional movie based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of hitler than this does. they just threw hitlers name on this so it would sell more.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
first and before reading further and you must understand that i am not neo nazi and i am just trying to understand correctly hitler to be sure nobody like him take power again. i have seen this series and found it awful. i mean and ok and it interesting to look and but is it real. i searched for answers and found one represent absolutely not. first and hitler wasn not angry all his life and the series shows an angry hitler and even when he is a child. second and hitler never wanted to abuse his daughter and in fact and it is highly probable that hitler and in reality and was gay and fought all his life to choke this secret. third and people will hate me but it true represent hitler was charming. how do you think he managed to get to power if he was so hateful and ugly. because he was charming. that a common point i found in the interviews of people who live near or far of him (of course and not jews). this series was awful because if you think that hitler was just an angry bastard and ugly and and of course and not charming at all and youre wrong. if you think that and you will let people like him take power in countries and you do not want that. if you really understand how hitler managed to get into power and and stop thinking he was just awful and you will be able to find dangerous politicians like him (of course and remember he was elected) and stop theme before it too late. life is important to protect and this series is just awful to show us the truth and if we continue to see hitler like that and another one will take place exactly as the first did.
first and before reading further and you must understand that i am not neo nazi and i am just trying to understand correctly hitler to be sure nobody like him take power again. i have seen this series and found it awful. i mean and ok and it interesting to look and but is it real. i searched for answers and found one represent absolutely not. first and hitler wasn not angry all his life and the series shows an angry hitler and even when he is a child. second and hitler never wanted to abuse his daughter and in fact and it is highly probable that hitler and in reality and was gay and fought all his life to choke this secret. third and people will hate me but it true represent hitler was charming. how do you think he managed to get to power if he was so hateful and ugly. because he was charming. that a common point i found in the interviews of people who live near or far of him (of course and not jews). this series was awful because if you think that hitler was just an angry bastard and ugly and and of course and not charming at all and youre wrong. if you think that and you will let people like him take power in countries and you do not want that. if you really understand how hitler managed to get into power and and stop thinking he was just awful and you will be able to find dangerous politicians like him (of course and remember he was elected) and stop theme before it too late. life is important to protect and this series is just awful to show us the truth and if we continue to see hitler like that and another one will take place exactly as the first did.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
having grown up in texas and and less than 15 miles from what used to be gilley and i can tell you that this movie is nauseating. the majority of texans do not live like this movie indicates. the plot is weak and and the fake accents are amusing and and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all texans are beer drinking and honky tonkin and rednecks. the horribly fake texas accents is what kills it for me. true and there is a certain texas twang to most texans accents and but these people overdo it. you can not get someone from new jersey and ohio to do texas accents. it just doesn not work. john travolta should have stuck to disco dancing or the 50s. debra winger was more convincing as wonder girl than she is as a texan.
having grown up in texas and and less than 15 miles from what used to be gilley and i can tell you that this movie is nauseating. the majority of texans do not live like this movie indicates. the plot is weak and and the fake accents are amusing and and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all texans are beer drinking and honky tonkin and rednecks. the horribly fake texas accents is what kills it for me. true and there is a certain texas twang to most texans accents and but these people overdo it. you can not get someone from new jersey and ohio to do texas accents. it just doesn not work. john travolta should have stuck to disco dancing or the 50s. debra winger was more convincing as wonder girl than she is as a texan.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the year 1934 was when shirley temple played three major movies and really began to make a name for herself. unfortunately and the studios had to experiment to see what the public best liked about here. two of those things were singing and dancing. another was a short and interesting film that kept people attention and got their minds off the depression. you know the other keys to shirley successful films. this film achieved none of the above and despite the star presences of gary cooper and carole lombard and despite a very good director in henry hathaway. in addition and there are too many talky parts in here which become simply boring and and too many arguments between a sullen lombard and cooper. to top it off and you do not get the normal feel good ending which is what the public wants. i guess they learned after this movie.
the year 1934 was when shirley temple played three major movies and really began to make a name for herself. unfortunately and the studios had to experiment to see what the public best liked about here. two of those things were singing and dancing. another was a short and interesting film that kept people attention and got their minds off the depression. you know the other keys to shirley successful films. this film achieved none of the above and despite the star presences of gary cooper and carole lombard and despite a very good director in henry hathaway. in addition and there are too many talky parts in here which become simply boring and and too many arguments between a sullen lombard and cooper. to top it off and you do not get the normal feel good ending which is what the public wants. i guess they learned after this movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the movie is an extra long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure spirit. the quite horribly american patrick swayze is cast as the british hero allan quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality. the movie continues throughout to hollywood ise the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. the movie manages to be predictable throughout and even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences. all in all and a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of king soloman mines and allan quatermain.
the movie is an extra long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure spirit. the quite horribly american patrick swayze is cast as the british hero allan quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality. the movie continues throughout to hollywood ise the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. the movie manages to be predictable throughout and even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences. all in all and a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of king soloman mines and allan quatermain.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
ok. not bad movie making if it were from an original script. but it is not. which part of in this story there are no women and except for foulata and gagoola introduction by haggard did the producers and directors and writers not understand. i mean and it is pretty plain english. i understood it at age 10. the beauty of ksm is that it contains a spectacular description of three different worlds and the colonial africa and the unforgiving desert and kukuanaland and a hidden and isolated kingdom. that should be more than enough for even the most mediocre of producers to work with. but and nooo and they have to throw romance into it. pathetic. suggestion to all you poor souls who actually thought this would be close to the book. give it up. until a peter jackson wannabe comes along and does it right you may as well keep re reading the tome. btw and there is a sequel book (actually a pre quel) called allan wife. it gives background to the story of quatermain. it is a bit creepy but good.
ok. not bad movie making if it were from an original script. but it is not. which part of in this story there are no women and except for foulata and gagoola introduction by haggard did the producers and directors and writers not understand. i mean and it is pretty plain english. i understood it at age 10. the beauty of ksm is that it contains a spectacular description of three different worlds and the colonial africa and the unforgiving desert and kukuanaland and a hidden and isolated kingdom. that should be more than enough for even the most mediocre of producers to work with. but and nooo and they have to throw romance into it. pathetic. suggestion to all you poor souls who actually thought this would be close to the book. give it up. until a peter jackson wannabe comes along and does it right you may as well keep re reading the tome. btw and there is a sequel book (actually a pre quel) called allan wife. it gives background to the story of quatermain. it is a bit creepy but good.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the novel. if you want to see the movie then do not read the novel first as it will shock you. however and cinematography was ok and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores africa then go for it. acting performances are adequate and however and many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. in the novel and sir henry curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.
the movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the novel. if you want to see the movie then do not read the novel first as it will shock you. however and cinematography was ok and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores africa then go for it. acting performances are adequate and however and many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. in the novel and sir henry curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.